tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88647422440917618252024-02-19T22:41:29.865-07:00 Freedom Yet Rings
Freedom - Politics - Current EventsBruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-35729804388030121652021-11-09T23:23:00.000-07:002021-11-09T23:23:48.756-07:00<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzbajEsB8E3lEzHcike0YjQ6DQbn5BKVqR0DG6C7k877RvoecTYuBvL77UYNuPNvnRVKOC65uDEEzKNzXm3_daUtud_Yi4Y6O3BCx_7tkRHH2-qQwPyd3wrhRjMvXhn_ckUDW_wfw0NpU1/s960/Ludmilla27DS_734a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="814" data-original-width="960" height="380" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzbajEsB8E3lEzHcike0YjQ6DQbn5BKVqR0DG6C7k877RvoecTYuBvL77UYNuPNvnRVKOC65uDEEzKNzXm3_daUtud_Yi4Y6O3BCx_7tkRHH2-qQwPyd3wrhRjMvXhn_ckUDW_wfw0NpU1/w449-h380/Ludmilla27DS_734a.jpg" width="449" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Two enterprising and creative young ladies from Kiev, Ukraine, Ludmila and Olesya, started their company about one year ago with a small store in Kiev selling swimwear and sportswear for women. Ludmila had some of her designs made for the store, and they were a big hit. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Now virtually all of their swimsuit and sportswear lines are designed in-house, made by a first-rate manufacturer they personally selected for the quality of their work, and sold exclusively in their store and on the website. Additional stores will be opening in various locations in the near future.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Congratulations ladies on your great success!</span></b></p>Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-3238528040552586222019-02-05T13:22:00.000-07:002019-04-18T05:14:07.072-06:00Response to Rubina Hanim Review of Salt Lake County Republican Party<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/rubinahanim?fref=nf&__tn__=%2Cdm-R-R&eid=ARAVip3ItYpUOBkZfgH2sKsz1Ea90W1EpSgTViMt77jpx_bBx_TaBaYwvUYo5f0Ho9KI7JawlynW5Rjd"><o:p></o:p></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/rubinahanim?fref=nf&__tn__=%2Cdm-R-R&eid=ARAVip3ItYpUOBkZfgH2sKsz1Ea90W1EpSgTViMt77jpx_bBx_TaBaYwvUYo5f0Ho9KI7JawlynW5Rjd"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-field-code: " HYPERLINK \0022https\:\/\/www\.facebook\.com\/rubinahanim?fref=nf&__tn__=\,dm-R-R&eid=ARAVip3ItYpUOBkZfgH2sKsz1Ea90W1EpSgTViMt77jpx_bBx_TaBaYwvUYo5f0Ho9KI7JawlynW5Rjd\0022 \\t \0022\0022 ";"><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif"; mso-no-proof: yes; mso-themecolor: hyperlink;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape alt="https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c0.44.112.112a/p112x112/44522035_10161016590480300_5295130995870138368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=73fcf87931592bc29edc1f6df8bb64db&oe=5CF63433" href="https://www.facebook.com/rubinahanim?fref=nf&__tn__=,dm-R-R&eid=ARAVip3ItYpUOBkZfgH2sKsz1Ea90W1EpSgTViMt77jpx_bBx_TaBaYwvUYo5f0Ho9KI7JawlynW5Rjd" id="Picture_x0020_2" o:button="t" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 84pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 84pt;" target="""" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t">
<v:imagedata o:title="44522035_10161016590480300_5295130995870138368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1" src="file:///C:\Users\beogden\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:fill></v:shape></span></u></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/rubinahanim?__tn__=%2CdlC-R-R&eid=ARBwBPQRmGe6mdXdc4rKEA-MvlsU397dD8eM-N6ZZLCoq-bUSJ7JsuW7IfsaZB-a_tbCA7IGaKbcG9u3&hc_ref=ARQWUMcPComEBb9GwvCHs1L7SKLwOKFYodmvpiAa2DUvxrjWrh959OY2J1VGMj-CpG4"><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">Rubina Hanim</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"> reviewed </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/slcogop/?__tn__=%2CdkC-R-R&eid=ARC4YnozLb23j-FYq_4Cx3ZXEXVEblWyLLp_NVXUlWaTjqvSogOyrXumIHzJdWnaSos4mZynZas5ycSo&hc_ref=ARQWUMcPComEBb9GwvCHs1L7SKLwOKFYodmvpiAa2DUvxrjWrh959OY2J1VGMj-CpG4&fref=tag"><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">Salt Lake County Republican
Party</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"> — 1
star<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/rubinahanim/posts/10160605573525300:0"><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">July 9, 2018</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"> · <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">The Review<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">No,
vote values and platform, not a party that has gone awry. I am so disappointed
in this party. You have crossed lines that should never have been crossed. You
remain silent and make life for other Americans an absolute hell. How dare you
think you are in any way shape or form better, more intelligent, or informed.
You are liars. You support racist nazi ideas that undermine any moral or ethics
boundary. You remain silent and complicity so. You allow people in your party
to run your races that are horrible human beings. You want authoritarian
government that hurts and humiliated others. Your party made a mockery of
republican values or generative beliefs. You cannot be Christian and Republican
in this time. You broke oaths and constitutional rights for others. You support
hatred and discord. You support violence and death. You support separation of
families and don’t care until you hurt. It’s dreadfully shameful this is who
and what you are. I hope you die a slow and painful death you dying breed of
inbred aholes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">My Response<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">It is good advice to support and vote for individuals who believe in
abiding by and voting in accordance with their values, principles, promises and the platform. Nearly half of
Republicans in Congress began with good intentions only to fall into lock-step with the “good-ole-boy” Progressive, Establishment Elite Republican leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">When
so many good people and solid Republicans get elected to federal office, it
isn’t long before the system teaches them Washington rules, that they must bend
to the will of the leadership or be effectively banished from the halls of
power and influence. With time,
Washington officials become more responsive to lobbyists than to their
constituents. So, yes, the party has gone awry. Although I’m uncertain as to
exactly in which century that occurred. Contrary to popular belief there is
more than one man fighting corruption in the Party. There are many Republicans
who are disappointed with how things have been going and are good and honest
people working very hard to set things right. Rather than just being critical
of what we need to change, why not join us in reforming the Party?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">For
much of the remainder of your comments, you seem to be disoriented, ascribing
to Republicans what precisely describes Democrats. A few notes. The Democrats
are the party of emotions, primarily anxiety, fear and hate. Democrats and the
media are famous for providing “fake news” to substantiate their fear and
hatred—real facts can only destroy their narrative, so looking into the truth
is discouraged. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">Republicans
are the party of logic, reason and actual facts, and these brain-tools are
routinely used to support a strong belief in principles and policies consistent
with the Constitution. Democrats hear Fake News talking points and store them
in a remote location; when activated, circuits carry impulses from the remote
location directly and repeatedly to the mouth without a trace of brain
electrical activity. Republicans study the issues and adhere to the principles
upon which correct solutions are based. So, yes! In regard to politics, Republicans
make better use of their intellect, they have a greater fund of knowledge, they
are more familiar with the truth and they are, by far, better informed! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">When
it comes to lies, nearly all politicians become expert liars over time. It’s my
observation that congressional Republicans lie about half the time, while congressional
Democrats lie almost all the time. I think it is a major disgrace and an insult
to our country, and each time one of them lies, the Sergeant at Arms should
fine them $1000, suspend them from Congress for a month or slap them upside the
head.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">When
you suggest that one party supports racist, Nazi ideas, I assume you’re talking
about the Democrats who vigorously support and fund with taxpayer monies the
killing of live human beings both before and after birth. It was an odious Nazi
practice to cull from society those with mental or physical abnormalities, to
purge and purify the genetic pool of the German people to develop a race of German
supermen. For myself, I don’t remain silent in the face of evil such as this,
nor do most of my Republican colleagues. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">In
the case of illegal immigrants where many of the children are unaccompanied or
are accompanied by adults that could be human traffickers, children are, of
course, separated from the adults for their own protection. Parents who place
their children in harm’s way through illegal immigration know that they stand
to be separated from family members and suffer other consequences because of
their outlaw status, are not fit to be parents. Likewise, Americans who place their children
in dangerous situations or involve them in criminal ventures are subject to
having their children removed from the home and the parent’s influence. Separation
in these instances is for the protection of the children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif";">Republicans
believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom, and in our
Constitutional Republic where government power and authority comes from the
people—the government is accountable to the people, and that’s the opposite of
authoritarian. It’s the Democrats/Socialists who want to drag America into an
authoritarian state. It is not Republicans who practice demonization,
humiliation and character assassination—again, that’s right out of the Democrat
playbook! Republicans are not the party that makes war on Christianity. It is the
Godless Democrats that have chosen to be free of any moral creed and whose
principles can be described as “The end justifies the means,” and “Do unto
others before they do unto you.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";">In the normal course of the 2016
Presidential Election, Trump was duly elected and became the President of the
United States. Poor loser Democrats cannot accept this so they hate Trump and
make up lies about him like the Russian collusion fantasy. The source of the
hatred and discord? The Democrats who are attempting a coup d’etat to
overthrow President Trump, burn the Constitution and establish a socialist
authoritarian state. It is a major shame and disgrace that the Democrats have
fallen so low that they are conspiring to undermine the Constitution and
destroy our Republic. Do you stand with these traitors or against them? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial nova cond" , "sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";">(Disclaimer: The views expressed
above are solely the opinions of the author and are not necessarily those of
Salt Lake County Republican Party or any other organization.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-64190070422082048082018-11-06T06:21:00.001-07:002018-11-06T06:37:12.243-07:00<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Utah Voting Recommendations for 2018 (Recommended*)</span></span></u></b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">U.S.Senate </span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></span>
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Tim Aalders*</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;"> is a Republican running on the Constitution Party ticket. He is a conservative committed to the Constitution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l4 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Please don’t vote Democrat</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> for any race. Republicans are working hard to maintain majorities in both houses of Congress. We simply cannot allow Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to gain control of the House or Senate—if they do regain a majority, America is in for more insanity, lies, corruption, character assassination, more “investigations” without merit judged on political necessity not the facts, suspension of due process and the rule of law and a host of dirty tricks that won’t end even after plotting multiple criminal conspiracies. The attempts to destroy Kavanaugh (Trump by proxy) by getting as down and dirty as they did only amount to something like a 30 second “G” rated preview of the actual “show” they’re planning to unleash on America if they get a chance.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">If the Democrats are given an opening to complete the destruction of the institutions of this country and continue the descent into chaos, there will come a time when America will have to choose: surrender all this country stands for or fight another, terrible civil war. I pray that this will not occur and that we never have to make that kind of choice. </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></span>
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Mitt Romney</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;"> is a good person with a good family who has made his fortune on Wall Street through hard work and a quick mind. He was the well-liked and successful Governor of Massachusetts. He ran for President of the United States as a Republican. Mitt is known for his desire to please, and in answering questions and debating the issues tends to take the path of least resistance. This has earned Romney the due reputation for flip-flopping.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Based solely on his actions (his words can’t entirely be trusted), Romney has most closely positioned himself as an establishment, “regressive” Republican. Most likely he would be voting with the establishment regressives which on occasion vote with the Democrats, particularly on spending bills. Mitt can be expected to support the establishment on most occasions. However, while Mitt cannot be relied upon to vote his “conscience” based on having fixed, and well-described principles, Tim Aalders can be relied upon to follow the Constitution. If you can’t vote for Romney, please consider voting for Tim Aalders for the U.S. Senate (and vice versa). Both are Republicans and would count toward Majority control of the Senate.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">U.S. House District 3</span></u></b><br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">John Curtis </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;">is the Republican nominee for U.S. Representative<b>. He cannot be recommended.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l5 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Gregory C. Duerden </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">is the Independent American Party candidate for U.S. Representative.<b> </b>I don’t know enough about this particular candidate to make a recommendation. However, from what I know about individuals that are members of the IAP, they seem to be Patriots possessing a strong sense of doing what’s right according to the founding principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah State Senate District 15</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Keith Grover</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">* is the Republican nominee for State Senate. <b><u></u></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah State House District 61</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Marsha Judkins*</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> is the Republican nominee for State House of Representatives.<b><u></u></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah County Commission Seat B</span></u></b><br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Bill Lee* </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;">is the Republican running for County Commissioner</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah County Attorney</span></u></b><br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">David O. Leavitt* </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-indent: -0.25in;">is the Republican running for Utah County Attorney.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah County Clerk/Auditor</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo7; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Jason Christensen</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> is the Independent American Party candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.<b><u></u></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo7; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Amelia Powers</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">* is the Republican candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.<b></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Constitutional Amendment A: </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Would relax the schedule of days to change the number of days (200) per calendar year to the number of days (200) in a 365 day period that a military person needs to serve out-of-state on a federal active duty order in order to qualify for a property tax exemption for his/her residence.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Being called to active duty out-of-state (i.e. deployed to a war zone) is unquestionably a hardship for the military person and any family left behind. Providing a property tax exemption for a military person’s Utah residence when deployed elsewhere for 200 days or more is a little thing to express Utah’s gratitude for the service done for the country, a little thing that would likely mean a lot to the individual and family. <b>Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment A.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Constitutional Amendment B: </span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">would authorize a property tax exemption to the property’s private owner for land or buildings leased to state or local governments.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">There currently exists a market, subject to the usual pressures of supply and demand, for leasing and giving in lease property by a private owner to a second party without class distinctions or advantages. Giving a tax exemption to a private owner for leasing his property to state or local government would create a “preferred” class in the state or local governments and a “non-preferred class” in everyone else. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Artificially manipulating either side of supply and demand (such as providing the proposed tax exemption) disrupts and distorts market forces that can lead to unexpected consequences including unfair and prejudicial behaviors and to the instability of prices and availability.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">In the case of a preferred lessee, the private property owner would be receiving the usual lease payment from a government lessee plus the amount of the tax exemption. A non-preferred lessee would make the lease payments but would not provide anything extra to the owner. Property owners might begin lobbying state and local governments to get their properties leased to the preferred class which would generate more income for the owner. This could open the door to corruption as government personnel might decide to lease from an owner who provides a kickback for leasing his property. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Property might be held vacant waiting for a potential preferred customer while denying access to a second-class customer. Lease prices might be reduced for preferred customers and increased for all others. There is no place in America’s free markets for government manipulation of market forces—after all, that’s what socialists and communists do in exercising absolute central control of their economies.<b> Recommendation: Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment B.</b></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Constitutional Amendment C:</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> Currently, only the Governor can convene a session of the legislature outside the usual 45 day annual general session. If members or leaders of the legislature believe an extra session is needed but the Governor disagrees, there is currently no way for the extra session to be convened. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The proposed Amendment would authorize the Legislature to convene a limited session, with 2/3 of House and Senate members agreeing that convening is necessary due to a crisis such as fiscal crisis, war, natural disaster or emergency affairs of the state. It would further require the Governor to reduce state expenditures or convene the Legislature into session if state expenditures will exceed revenue for a fiscal year. The Amendment would further require such extra session to be held at the state capitol unless it’s not feasible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">While the Governor may have a good reason for refusing to call an extra session, it seems unreasonable that a Governor would deny a request from the legislature to convene an extra session in the face of a pressing need or crisis. However, it seems entirely reasonable that in the case where a Governor refuses to call a session needed to deal with a serious crisis that the legislature with 2/3 of its member agreeing with the stated need to convene, and for that extra session to be held in the state capitol. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Most certainly, if state spending appears to be exceeding revenue, the Governor should act to correct the situation. If the Governor should neglect to correct said situation, the Governor should be required to convene the legislature into special session to fix the problem. <b>Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment C. </b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The Issue of Fiscal Responsibility </span></u></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">(<b>details of recommendations concerning Mitt Romney, John Curtis, Education Funding in General or anything to do with Common Core, Nonbinding Opinion Question #1, Prop 2, and Prop 3).</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Federal spending has been increasing exponentially over these past decades leading to astronomical deficits (debt). This simply cannot continue indefinitely; at some point, we must turn this around and cut spending to the point of being able to pay down the deficit rather than borrowing more each year. Any spending that is not absolutely necessary should be halted immediately; this should start with slashing the departments and funding of the federal government that do not pertain to its prerogatives as given in the Constitution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Federal, state and local governments, businesses and individuals that had been regularly petitioning federal funding (for building monuments to themselves, earmarks, pork barrel jobs and other such things that might be nice to have but are not essential) have been informed by the people since the inception of the Tea Party and the discovery of Rand Paul that they must halt the indiscriminate outflow of money and pay down the deficit. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">This means that every one of us, from high office to the lone individual, needs to refrain from seeing federal money as a windfall for us and come to the realization that any federal money comes from us—it is and always will be our (taxpayer) money that we are wasting. In fact, taxpayer money from the federal government to the states is perhaps the least efficient method of funding state projects. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Federal taxes collected from Utah taxpayers passes through many hands as it moves from the IRS through the Congress, to the various agencies until it is rebated back to Utah as a tiny fraction of what was originally paid by Utahns. When Utahns pay taxes directly to the state to fund state programs, that whole dollar for dollar amount goes toward Utah’s expenses. Ideally, we should end all federal rebates, dramatically reduce federal taxes and raise state taxes to where the states can pay for their programs without obtaining federal funding and the attached strings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">In ancient times, leaders capable of bringing money from Washington to the local communities were held in high regard. These leaders had to have a highly-developed facility for spending taxpayer dollars and due to success in this realm were often showered with reelection votes by a grateful people. Even in modern times, leaders who remain relics of the fiscally irresponsible past begin pavlovian salivation each and every time the federal money bell rings. Neither Utah nor any state can tolerate anymore state leaders that fit this description.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">One perk that seems to inspire so many of these leaders today is the natural outcome of a great political truth: <i>“The more taxpayers’ dollars you are in charge of spending, the greater your political power and the greater your opportunity for enrichment.”</i> Given this fact, it’s not hard to understand why politicians seek multiple terms in office and, despite claiming to be fiscal conservatives, can never quite bring themselves to cut spending.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">In the fiscal dire straits we find ourselves with a deficit in excess of $23 trillion, while bringing home federal bacon has been praised and rewarded in the past, it is now seen to have been a reckless, selfish and inhumane practice that allowed profligate spending by several generations that could then stick the tab for their overindulgence on their grandchildren and future generations. This despicable behavior is generational theft and it should be outlawed. Of all the animals upon the earth, only a handful of species, along with man, eat their young. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">All Americans should unite behind this cause and demand of our representatives, our leaders at every level of government and of ourselves that we halt this child abuse. This starts with each of us ceasing to request government money, benefits and other perks; this movement should work its way right up the food chain. After decades of passing the buck to those who are helpless to prevent it, it will be difficult to stop this ingrained practice; it may be as difficult to stop generational theft as it was to stop the evil practice of slavery—pray it doesn’t take a civil war to do so. What it will take for sure is a major paradigm shift, a switch to a new culture of temperate spending, valuing and looking out for our descendants and extending fairness to future generations.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">In Utah’s recent history, a number of prominent political leaders have heard the siren call of federal taxpayer dollars, were quite successful at provisioning the funding and completed a showcase project. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took over the Utah Winter Olympics when rumors of ethical improprieties began to circulate about the former Director that led to Romney taking over the task of putting on the Olympics. Under Romney’s direction a highly successful Olympics was carried out, with but a single flaw. Mitt petitioned the federal government to bail out the Utah Olympics and with the federal funding was able to carry it off. <b>Recommendation: Mitt Romney cannot be recommended without reservation.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Current Congressman John Curtis (formerly Mayor of Provo) is another Utah politician inspired by the prospect of a large federal grant. Curtis has been, until recently, a Democrat and today still clings to the same principles and values of big government and big spending. Curtis decided to undertake a project consistent with Democrat themes, that of a mass transit system (BRT), pleasing his friends in the Utah transportation industry. BRT would spur additional mass transit that would pave the way for high-rise, high-density housing, pleasing developers. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Beautiful, serene, small-town America would be harrowed under; to emerge from its chrysalis into a new, bustling urban center. Most residents object to BRT, believe that it is a tremendous waste of money (whether or not it’s local or federal, it all comes from the taxpayers), are against tearing up pioneer landmarks, are not in favor of blocking the flow of automobile traffic followed by the eventual elimination of vehicle travel in the Provo-Orem area and oppose the urbanization of Utah County. Curtis is undeterred by either the will of the people or the difficulty in raising the money he has already appropriated for BRT.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Curtis signed on for $75 million in federal grant matching funds. Another $75 million would be obtained by increasing taxes on Utah County taxpayers. He puts a bond issue before the voters for <i>“fixing potholes, etc.”</i> but it’s widely known it’s to pay for BRT—it’s rejected. Curtis instituted special “fees” on utility bills ostensibly because of the rising cost of power, but rather than go for the stated purpose, Curtis appropriates the proceeds to pay for BRT. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Residents of Provo put forward a petition, gathered the required signatures and submitted the completed application for an initiative to Lt. Governor Spencer Cox. The application called for an initiative to be placed on the next ballot to determine whether the people wanted Curtis to proceed with his BRT project or whether the people’s will was to kill the project. Curtis ran to his UTA and DOT cronies and they went to Lt. Governor Cox’s where they conspired to stop the people that opposed BRT by whatever means necessary as the resistance movement was interfering with a project that would bring a great deal of money to the State from the federal government, the project would make some important wealthy people even wealthier and the project was seen by UTA and DOT as critical to their continued power and control within Utah government as well as to their plans for future exclusive domination of mass transit in the state.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">iProvo was the multi-million dollar fiberoptic infrastructure venture that was to have provided ultra-high-speed connections to the world and establish Utah County as an international hub of commerce. The project was financed by huge bond issues with the people of Utah County on the hook if iProvo failed to meet expectations. Under Curtis’ guidance, iProvo was reportedly devalued by a series of bad decisions, bad management and transactions of questionable ethics culminating in the sale of iProvo to Google for $1.00. Of course, local residents are still paying off the huge bonds that were issues to finance the construction of iProvo.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Curtis refuses to listen to the voice of the people, he has no concept of fiscal responsibility and he has a knack for turning promising ventures into absolute failures. If Curtis has not crossed the line of moral and ethical behavior in many of his dealings in business and politics, he is constantly tip-toeing around that line. He does not seem to have integrated clear boundaries between right and wrong and has yet to be accountable for his behavior in politics. <b>Recommendation: Even though Curtis is running as a Republican and would be counted as far as reconfirming Majority status of Republicans in the U.S. House, I cannot in good conscience recommend him.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Lt. Governor Spencer Cox</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> continue to lead the field in this state for seeking and obtaining huge sums of federal taxpayer money for state projects. They have sought infusions of federal cash at every juncture, notably in adopting Common Core (CC) which brought with it the dumbing down of childhood education and the “regressive” indoctrination and brainwashing of our children. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">In return for allowing CC to do damage to our children, our fearless leaders got a <s>few worthless beans</s> promise of significant federal funding (Race to the Top) and continued annual funding from the feds. Utah never received any Race to the Top funds, but we did get a recurring bill from the NGOs that developed the Common Core package for all the proprietary materials, standards, curriculum, monitoring, testing and data gathering that accompany CC. The additional expenses for CC have dramatically increased indirect spending on K-12 education (i.e. money that doesn’t go directly towards teachers or to the children). <b>Recommendation: Vote NO on anything supported by Governor Herbert or Lt. Governor Cox, anything purported to be for education, Common Core, or anything that involves obtaining federal funding for state programs.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The insatiable thirst of these leaders for revenue from the taxpayers, either through direct taxes on Utahns or indirectly through federal rebates of Utah taxpayer money to the State that comes with onerous strings attached, has led to significant increases in property and gasoline taxes over the last 10 years. Then, despite a recent multi-million dollar revenue surplus, Utah’s tax and spend Governor, Lt. Governor and Legislature have placed on the ballot <b>“Nonbinding Opinion Question #1”</b> which is political-speak for <i>“We’d love your support for another gas tax increase on top of all the recent increases, but we’re going to do this regardless of whether or not we have your support.”</i> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The stated purpose of this tax is <i>“To provide additional funding for public education and local roads.”</i> The listed purpose of the money going towards education is a lie to appeal to your sympathies in order to gain support for another tax increase. The small print reveals that the money from the additional gas tax will ALL go towards expensive and unnecessary mass transit. The excuse given of pleading for “the children” is that if the state government hasn’t as much money as they want to spend on transportation, they’ll take it from the general fund, which monies, they say, could potentially otherwise be spent on education. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Since K-12 education funding does not come out of the general fund, using “education” as an inducement to support the government in enriching the Utah transportation industry is a deceptive ploy. Question #1 goes through various contortions to deceive and confuse the voter. Stripping away the window dressing, this is an insult to the intelligence of the Utah voter, an insult prescribed and delivered by Governor Herbert and Lt. Governor Cox. <b>Recommendation: Vote NO on Nonbinding Opinion Question #1.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Prop 2 – Establishing a State Program for Medical Marijuana.</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> Most will agree that enough has been said and written about this issue, both pro and con. However, there is the prospect of a Compromise Solution that, while not yet in final form, has apparently found wide-spread agreement on common ground issues among the interested parties. If Prop 2 passes, there will be those who will push (and rightly so) for full implementation of the initiative which would go way beyond and preclude any Compromise Solution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">While Prop 2 and the Compromise Solution process each have a significant number of strong supporters among Utahns, completing negotiations, writing and passing legislation for a Compromise Solution simply cannot occur if the Prop 2 initiative is to be the law in Utah. If we think we have seen contention in Utah over the issue of medical marijuana to date, I’m not optimistic we can avoid a level of confrontation that far surpasses our current observations. <b>Recommendations: Prayerfully vote your conscience, based on your sound, fixed principles and values.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Another assault on the Utah taxpayers’ checkbooks based on the love of federal funding is “Medicaid Expansion.” Medicaid is a state program to provide healthcare coverage for those who could not afford to purchase coverage on their own. Under the terms of Obamacare, the mandate included that the states expand their Medicaid programs to provide taxpayer-funded coverage to a greater percentage of low-income families than the states had previously decided on their own to cover. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">As states began to adopt Obamacare terms and provide expanded coverage, it was found that many of those to be provided the “expanded” Medicaid already could afford and actually had purchased health insurance; of course, once informed of eligibility for free Medicaid, this was accepted and private insurance dropped.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Now that the Obamacare mandate no longer exists, each state must decide whether or not to expand their coverage. For states that implement Medicaid Expansion, the federal government will pick up a good portion of the tab for the increased coverage; however, this decreases each year until, in a few years, the entire burden of expansion will be on the state alone. Since Medicaid Expansion goes beyond providing coverage for those who can’t afford their own, it is more of the same, familiar Democrat Themes: Bigger government and bigger spending, working towards government single-payer healthcare, income redistribution, fostering greater dependence on government and discouraging self-reliance. <b>Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 3 “Medicaid Expansion.”</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Prop 4 – Gerrymandering - Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair and Unbiased While Providing No Partisan Advantage.</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> I have never liked the idea of gerrymandering as it seems so un-American. This being the case before reading about Prop 4, I assumed that I likely would be supporting it. As it turns out, fixing gerrymandering is more difficult than one would imagine. Nevertheless, in order to maintain our Republic with our representative form of government, we must draw district boundaries. Periodically, due to changes in demographics (especially in our very mobile society), district boundary lines must be redrawn to compensate for these demographic changes. This is known as “redistricting”. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Someone must be given the task, on whatever schedule is decided upon, of performing this redistricting. Ideally, redistricting would be performed in a fair and unbiased manner void of efforts to obtain an advantage. Saying or writing that is easy, the hard part is designing a way to do this that gives you the ideal end-result. Prop 4 is an attempt to do this most difficult part. Unfortunately, this attempt goes through a number of unwieldy machinations and ends up failing miserably to accomplish its objective. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The problems with Prop 4, in my opinion, are these: it creates more unnecessary bureaucracy, there is no need to change the way redistricting is currently done, the changes proposed by Prop 4 do nothing to improve redistricting and each redistricting would cost several millions of dollars and take several years to resolve as the State of Utah would be forced into suing itself to block the legislature from doing its job. Each redistricting would eventually be decided in the courts by unelected judges, instead of by the elected representatives of the people lawfully charged with this responsibility.</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "jasmineupc" , "serif"; font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-family: "jasmineupc" , "serif"; font-size: large;">Further information on Prop 4 </span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2018/10/utah-prop-4-is-disaster.html">https://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2018/10/utah-prop-4-is-disaster.html</a></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 4 – Failed Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair & Unbiased Without Providing Any Partisan Advantage</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Official Ballot for Provo City, Utah Special Bond Election</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> – Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">This would authorize Provo City, Utah to issue bonds not to exceed the amount of $ 69 million for acquiring, constructing and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center and city hall. In addition, the replacement of the Canyon Road fire station, for related improvements in Provo City and to provide money for refunding outstanding general obligation bonds (the bond refunding is explained in detail in the ballot).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">I received a survey sponsored by Provo City on the subject of the proposed bonds for the described project a number of months ago in which I was highly critical of the project as described in the survey. After submitting my completed survey, I wrote our Mayor, Michelle Kaufusi, regarding my concerns about the necessity and location of the project and the subsequent cost to Provo residents. I’m certain there were other communications in this regard.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The Mayor’s first response to the apparent public resistance to the project was to create a video tour of the City Center buildings that was released to the news. In the video, Mayor Kaufusi gives the public a look at the leaking and semi-fallen apart eaves, the cracks in the foundation where water was leaking into the police Evidence Room in the basement, and a good number of former closets that had been converted into makeshift offices for needed personnel due to the shortage of space. Everywhere on the tour, the buildings were bursting at the seams and falling apart beyond repair. The foundation repair alone would have cost almost as much as the total amount the city was requesting in the bond issue.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Mayor Kaufusi’s next move was to request from her constituency any and all concerns and objections. I don’t have any idea how many responses the Mayor received or what the major concerns of the people may have been. However, some of my specific concerns and suggestions were apparently considered and adopted in the final planning stages (whether because of my communication or in spite of it I don’t know).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Earlier plans had been to construct the police and fire headquarters and the dispatch center in the former Sears building at the old Town Center Mall. The new City Hall was to be built at another location also not in the heart of the city. In my letter to Mayor Kaufusi, I questioned whether the condition of the current city offices was truly unsalvageable, whether the offices might be renovated or alternatively, all or any portion of the buildings where renovation could not be justified could be torn down and new buildings constructed which would include options to go vertical as needed. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">I expressed my belief that any move of a part or of the entire city complex away from the Downtown area would be a blow to commerce in the center of the city and would be seen by city businesses and residents alike as abandoning a city center struggling to reestablish itself as a vibrant commercial hub. I suggested that if land were required other than or in addition to the current City Center parcel to meet the city’s needs building on the City Center parcel could be expanded to include the good-sized parking lot(s) behind the property for City Center personnel parking, and appropriate parking could be provided with a multi-level parking structure occupying significantly less square feet than the current flat parking lot(s). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Other property, either adjacent to or nearby the current parcel could possibly be acquired for this purpose. Specifically, there is a park-like parcel of land part of the Covey Center for the Arts adjacent to the City Center complex. I’m certain there would be a number of other good-sized pieces of land or smaller lots that might be merged to become large enough for the planned construction—land in the Downtown area that might be acquired and used for this purpose. I have not seen the finalized plans for this, but I do know from the wording on the ballot that the city is planning on building the new offices in the Downtown area. Also, rumors have it that the city will be using land adjacent to the current complex.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">When Mayor Kaufusi was first elected, I was not convinced she was the best person for the job. In addition, I was concerned, perhaps unfairly, that she would handle her responsibilities as Mayor in a similar fashion to the previous Mayor John Curtis who ignored the voice of his constituents and relentlessly pursued his personal agenda without regard for or accepting responsibility for the numbers who suffered collateral damages at his hands.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">To my pleasant surprise, Mayor Kaufusi is off to a terrific start in her job. I’m impressed that she is regularly communicating with Provo residents and businesses, that she sends out a newsletter explaining what she’s doing and things that are happening in and around Provo, that she regularly seeks feedback on issues of importance to Provo residents. I’m amazed that Mayor Kaufusi finds time to listen to her constituents and that she seems to carefully consider what she hears and then acts where action is appropriate. I’m gratified to know that Mayor Kaufusi responds to criticism in a mature manner, hearing constructive criticism, absorbing and understanding the positive portions and then taking action that works for the betterment of our city.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Recommendations: Vote YES on the Provo City, Utah Special Bond Election. I also recommend that you join me in supporting Mayor Michelle Kaufusi in her important work for Provo City and its residents.</span></b></div>
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-60537486949696604432018-10-29T06:50:00.001-06:002018-10-29T07:14:29.590-06:00 How to End Illegal Immigration<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Illegal immigration is a huge problem for the United States. By the millions, immigrants cross the border in opposition to the will of the citizens as expressed in immigration law and take up residence in this country illegally, without invitation, permission or consent from our sovereign nation. Many live in the shadows, in fear of being identified as an illegal and deported. Some of these illegals come to the U.S. to work, earn a meager income and send most of it home to support their families south of our border. A good portion of this uninvited crowd are criminals involved in human trafficking, illegal drugs and gang violence. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Many that come to the U.S. will work for low wages; businesses that hire illegals and other businesses that learn that illegals will work for less, lower their pay scales for all their workers. More and more illegals are applying for and obtaining social services in the form of financial support, housing, food stamps, welfare, SSI benefits, Medicaid, education benefits, etc. By a misinterpretation of the Constitution, when an illegal immigrant couple has children born in the U.S., at birth the newborns are erroneously declared U.S. citizens (Anchor Babies). Citizens can have family members immigrate legally to join them in the U.S. (Chain Migration). Foreigners desiring a visa to enter the U.S. can do so by winning a lottery just for immigrants (Immigration by Lottery).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">In the past, giving Amnesty to those illegals living in the country was seen as a way to end illegal immigration—by simply designating illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. Rather than discourage illegal immigration, Amnesty made it so much worse; suddenly there were thousands more crossing the border illegally thinking they might, just by living illegally in the U.S., also be granted Amnesty.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">More
recently, there has been a loud call from the American people for a substantial
wall to be built along our southern border that might greatly limit illegal
immigration and enable Homeland Security and ICE to deal with a more manageable
number of illegals. Many claim a wall would not even slow down illegal border
crossings and that ultimately it would be a waste of money. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">We have long been
very soft on illegal immigrants apprehended by law enforcement, failing to
deport almost all of these, even the criminals. Many that are deported often
end up back in the U.S. Perhaps we should deport all apprehended to some
country in Africa that would agree to take them and see how many bounce back
then. Would that be enough of a deterrent? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">If an
immigrant claims asylum, they are given a court date to plead their cases for
asylum months into the future and are then set free in the U.S. (Catch &
Release); few ever return for their court date. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Our policy for dealing with those seeking asylum should be altered such that no
applications for asylum are taken at the border, they’re only taken at United
States embassies in foreign countries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">The wall, by
itself, could not possibly halt all illegal immigration as long as there are
strong incentives for coming to the United States; most people admit that
constant searching for tunnels, monitoring air travel, checking for human
trafficking in large rigs masquerading as commercial trucking, and many other
measures will be necessary in addition to the wall. What we have failed to
consider as a nation, is this critical question: “Why are people putting
themselves in life or death situations, selling all their possessions to buy
the aid of criminals in crossing over to the United States, braving the
treacherous deserts to get here?” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The answer to that question must be known and
understood before illegal immigration can be dealt with effectively. If we can
determine what incentives exist that drive illegal immigration, by removing
those incentives, illegal immigration will cease to meet the illegals’
expectations, and unsatisfied illegals will return home of their own accord. As
it is unhealthy to separate families, departing illegals will be vigorously
encouraged to take their whole family with them back home. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Many of the
incentives for illegals to come here are commonly known; some are discussed
above. I have made a list of steps to be taken for the removal of incentives
for coming here. I believe this is the only way to stop illegal immigration without
using armed military force.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .6in;">
<b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">Remove Incentives and
They Won’t Come -<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .8in; text-indent: .3in;">
<b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">– There is No Other Non-Violent
Way to Stop Illegal Immigration<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .6in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More Insecure Border – Build the Wall, Harden the Target.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No Amnesty (or even talk of amnesty which encourages more to
come illegally).<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More Catch & Release; No More Applicants for Asylum at
the Border, No More Slacking on Current Immigration Law Enforcement.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No Jobs for Illegals; Strict E-Verify, stiff punishment for
those that hire illegals and swift deportation for illegals.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Going (directly or indirectly)
to or for Illegals: No Healthcare, No Welfare, No Food Stamps, No Worker’s
Comp, No Social Security Benefits, No Education Benefits, No Paid Family Leave.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">6.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More Drivers’ Licenses or ID Cards for Illegals; And No
Illegal Immigrant Votes.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">7.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More Anchor Babies.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">8.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No More Lottery or Chain Migration.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">9.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No Official Language but English. No More Pressing the
Number “1” for English.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">10.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No Separating the Families of Illegal Immigrants – All Go
Home Together.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">11.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="color: #595959; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 166;">No Sanctuary Cities, States or Sanctuary Anything.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1.1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-3909865132695785732018-10-28T15:08:00.001-06:002018-10-28T15:08:54.305-06:00Utah Prop 4 is a Disaster!<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">The problem with Prop 4 is that it creates more bureaucracy, there is no need to change the way redistricting is currently done, the changes proposed by Prop 4 do nothing to improve redistricting and under Prop 4 terms each redistricting would cost several millions of dollars and take several years to resolve as the State of Utah would be forced into suing itself to block the legislature from doing its job. Each redistricting would eventually be decided by the courts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Prop 4 would have a commission established that will recommend a redistricting plan to the legislature that can either accept or reject the commission’s plan. If the legislature rejects the commission’s plan, it must develop its own plan and vote to pass it. Whatever plan the legislature decides on, if someone doesn't believe the legislature's plan meets the requirements specified by Prop 4, Prop 4 authorizes lawsuits to block implementation of the legislature’s plans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">First, we must decide if the current law regarding redistricting is sufficient as it stands or if there is a critical flaw in current redistricting processes that needs to be fixed. Currently, a redistricting plan is more or less developed by the majority party in the legislature (this has typically been the Republicans in the State House and Senate). The plan is presented to the entire legislature and voted upon. If Republicans develop the plan and then most of them vote for the plan, the Republicans essentially control redistricting. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Is it fair and reasonable that the Republicans control redistricting as they do most governmental processes in Utah? Yes—because the people elect representatives to represent them in the state government. If the majority of Utahns are Republicans, it is reasonable that the legislature might have a similar political mix. This same relationship can be seen between the party of the majority of the people and the majority in the legislature in other states like California and New York where the Democrats control just about everything. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">In any of the states that have a dominant political party, anyone may try to persuade others to switch parties. Barring mass numbers switching parties, the status quo is likely to remain as it is. The point is, the system is working as designed to represent the people; there is no need to alter how we redistrict. There are two major strikes against Prop 4, 1) that there is no need to change how Utah redistricts, and 2) That Prop 4 while costing a fortune, does nothing to improve the redistricting process—it only adds to the craziness and polarization of politics today.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">The Redistricting Commission members are to be appointed this way: The Governor appoints one member, the Republican Leadership in the Legislature appoints three members and the Democrat Leaders in the Legislature appoint three members. There’s absolutely no way such a commission could be referred to as “independent”. So instead of having a partisan legislature coming up with a plan for gerrymandering district boundaries, we have a partisan commission making a plan, turning it over to the legislature and then having the partisan legislature accept the commission’s plan or develop their own plan and pass that plan in session. The cost of adding this commission to the process in order to give the legislature a second biased recommendation is estimated at over $1 million.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Then the craziness really gets underway. While Prop 4 does not specify exactly who will do the following, it says that “someone” will establish qualifications for the commission members and establish requirements for redistricting plans. That same “someone” will authorize lawsuits to block the legislature’s plan if anyone feels it is not consistent with the established redistricting requirements. I think it’s fair to say that there’s never been a redistricting plan in the history of the earth when there hasn’t been at least one person that was not completely happy with the plan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">So, practically speaking, Prop 4 is designed to throw all redistricting plans to the courts (which have their own, separate biases) for them to decide in lieu of the legislature what they think is a fair and reasonable way for districts to be divided up. In terms of the Utah Constitution, redistricting is a prerogative of the legislature; changing this to one of the court’s responsibilities would require a constitutional amendment. According to Prop 4, every redistricting would be tied up in the courts for years with the State of Utah suing the State of Utah over this. During the course of the lawsuits and appeals, voting and other critical, district-related activities would be suspended. Prop 4 could possibly shut down Utah government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Overall, I would say Prop 4 is a complete disaster! In my opinion, the only good that could possibly come from Prop 4 would be to lower the unemployment rate for Utah lawyers. As Prop 4 is not needed in the first place, and as Prop 4 does nothing to change redistricting for the better, all at an additional cost to taxpayers of several million dollars, my recommendation is to: VOTE NO on PROP 4.</span>Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-88796494212090252812018-10-24T05:51:00.000-06:002018-10-24T06:45:31.136-06:00 Just Another Brick in the Wall<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Many of us have called for an end to Common Core (CC) from even before it had been implemented. Now that CC is well-established and the Utah State education system has backed it 100%, calls for the repeal of CC are met with resistance in the form of genuine concern about discarding a system that is fully integrated and running smoothly—with what would CC be replaced?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I believe that we should never abandon an entire organized system of education with everything in place, standards, curriculum, courses to replace it with something developed in haste by who knows who, and what particular agenda would be guiding the development of standards and curriculum? Also, was the replacement put together by parents, teachers and community leaders who are legitimate stakeholders in the education of their children or was it developed by education theorists and philosophers that have never taught anybody anything—with little input from the stakeholders, local people who are deeply invested in our children’s outcomes. It would be a major mistake for anyone having an excellent program in hand, to discard something of great value for a slick sales pitch and a handful of beans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxIDOL0TehurpX8dPnz4uPmOs5Jfh6qymNzb3WY6TQpTXIsYtv8a1PSuNXWQynM0pOgW-ySJp9P3u8pB5yAxg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Unfortunately, this exact scenario played out by means of government coercion when Common Core (untried and untested hogwash theories with intent to indoctrinate/brainwash our children, turn them against their families’ values and culture and teach them to rely on the government for values, morality and how to think) was foisted on Utah by Governor Herbert who was blinded by all the federal dollars he was promised for Utah education. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Over the last several decades, states have increasingly relied on federal dollars to fund state programs, such as education and Medicaid. To our detriment, states receiving federal funding were instructed exactly how they should be educating children by the feds. Increasing regulatory burden and federal “guidelines” that accompany federal funds to states for education have led to a complete federal takeover of the states’ programs that gave us Common Core. Under CC, the federal government now runs our education in the United States, and the education bill to the states from the feds increases markedly every year.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Similarly, with the increasing entanglement of the federal government with state Medicaid programs (medical care is provided by the state for those who can’t afford to buy health insurance), the feds have insisted that Medicaid be expanded to cover many families who could afford and had bought their own health insurance. Where Medicaid expansion has occurred, many families that had purchased their own health insurance, but were now eligible for free Medicaid, closed out their policies and signed up for Medicaid. The original purpose of Medicaid, to help those without the means, was lost in Medicaid Expansion; the new purpose: to make the people more dependent on government and to make big government even bigger at taxpayer expense. Vote NO on Prop 3, Medicaid Expansion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">The federal government has been spending money it doesn’t have by borrowing what it needs to make up the difference between the revenue collected and the total they’ve spent each year. That difference, the borrowed money, is called “the deficit”. Our deficit now is somewhere around 23 trillion dollars. Currently, we’re paying the interest only each year on the borrowed money. At some point we’re going to have to pay on the principal and interest; it’s likely that our generation, the one that spent the borrowed money, will stick our children, our grand-children and likely also our great-grand-children with paying off our debt. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">This is not the legacy most of us had hoped to leave for our posterity. If we had any integrity, we would cut government spending, stop borrowing and spending money we don’t have and pay back that which is owed as rapidly as possible. To accomplish this, we need to stop the current bleeding that goes on every year where the feds pony-up millions of dollars for the states to keep Common Core watered and fed. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">The feds should also cease to provide the states with funding for Medicaid Expansion. And Governor Herbert should cease to beg for federal funding for every program he wants to run. The only way to reduce the deficit without killing the economy (counter-productive; as earnings and incomes shrink, so does revenue) is to dramatically reduce spending, all the pork and money to the states must stop. All dependency on federal dollars must be discouraged.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Most of the federal money promised the states for adopting Common Core never found its way to Utah and the increased expense of doing CC (including that of paying third-party NGOs who developed the proprietary CC system and remain intimately involved in computer testing and data-mining our children) has placed an additional burden on Utah taxpayers. Despite taxpayers having funded a number of tax increases to cover the additional costs of CC, additional revenue is being sought now in the name of educating our children. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">However, if the tax increase is approved, little of the revenue will actually go to the schools and virtually none of it will go toward teacher’s salaries. Instead, the majority of the revenue will be diverted to other purposes, such as mass transit. Don’t waste your money on government, hoping it will get to the children; it never does. Give it directly to your children! Vote NO on the Nonbinding Opinion Question #1. Say No to increasing the gas tax to create a bigger government slush fund.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Utah’s K-12 educational system had been a top-rated system that many dedicated educators, local government officials and workers, parents and volunteers had worked diligently on, putting together and refining the details over many years. Utah’s standards, curriculum and coursework designs served as a model system that a number of other states borrowed to pattern their systems after ours. The Utah education system could be restored to us within hours of discarding Common Core.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Common Core had not been vetted by any of the major stakeholders involved in the education of our children, like parents, teachers and local communities that stand in the best interests of the children. Utah’s system was summarily discarded and Bill Gates’ space age digitized protocols were put in motion. Bill’s grand experiment is using our children as his own personal guinea pigs. Our children are treated under Common Core as objects to be acted upon with cold indifference by the power and control elite who have supported Common Core from the start. These supporters include many leaders of industry who are interested in assuring an adequate workforce will exist in the near future to sustain their companies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Common Core was developed and implemented primarily to mass-produce efficient little robototron workers fated by design to have their implanted silicon chips cease functioning immediately after the warranty expires. Children that are the victims of this Common Core travesty remain of necessity in the workforce until they’re completely worn down and ground into dust (or perhaps sausage) on the assembly lines of tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Common Core must be jettisoned immediately, not just because our children are no longer being educated (everything is being “dumbed down” to the lowest common denominator), but because they’re being harmed by the soulless and heartless methods and the progressive content and agenda of the state. It’s so much more important to the state to create generation after generation of compliant and submissive mechanical subjects that will easily bend to the state’s authoritarian will. It’s of much greater interest to the state to “train” today’s children to be tomorrow’s workforce than it is for the state to be involved in providing anyone a genuine “classical education.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Any deviation from the state prescribed highways of vocational training onto the twisted pathways of a classical education is likely to elicit such distasteful occurrences as school children having original, independent thoughts, thinking innovatively, outside the box, or being able to critically think about and assess the merits of (for example) what they’re being taught (or not taught) in school.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">As far as education, the state’s Common Core is much more interested in regimenting political correctness (based not on equal opportunity, but on equal outcomes). Since the state values collective mediocrity and abhors individual excellence, absolute “educational equality” must be enforced—after all, it wouldn’t be fair, in terms of “educational justice,” to have little Jimmie be very bright and get all “A”s on his report card while his less gifted classmate Sally takes home a report card with all “C”s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I thought Common Core would be dismantled soon after Obama had completed his second term. President Trump has spoken of scuttling Common Core, but as far as I can tell, little has been done in this regard. The Constitution provides certain limited and specific powers and responsibilities to be the domain of the federal government. Other than those powers listed for the feds, all other powers and responsibilities are the prerogatives of the states and the people. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">The federal powers have never legitimately included education or healthcare. The fact that the feds are indeed running national education and healthcare programs informs us that the federal government has overreached for years its Constitutional limits. These illicit powers the federal government has usurped from the states and the people must be stripped from the feds and placed in the hands of local authorities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">It is getting harder each day to stand by, waiting what seems like forever for CC to be put down. Maybe we need to light a fire under our Governor and Legislature, start impeachment procedures against our state officials, or perhaps start an initiative to go on the next ballot to dump CC. What more can we do to make CC disappear?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-62341561960880600412018-10-15T07:03:00.001-06:002018-10-15T07:15:32.162-06:00<h2>
</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: white; font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Lies & Pecadillos: </span></b><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">What’s Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story – Part Two </span></b></span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">The Democrats and the mainstream media called Dr. Christine Blasey Ford "courageous" for providing to the Senate Committee what appeared to be her emotion-laden testimony that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, had sexually assaulted her 36 years prior while they were both in high school. Many who observed Dr. Ford’s testimony felt that she was believable as far as having experienced something bad in her life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">However, there is no consensus as to whether Judge Kavanaugh was the one involved in this incident. Ford’s testimony, aside from its multiple inconsistencies and a complete lack of any evidence or corroboration, displayed alarming physical signs suggesting that her intentions were to deceive. Her performance at the hearing was calculated, pre-planned and practiced in an attempt to evoke sympathy and belief in her unsubstantiated story.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">One minute Ford was hunched over, making herself small and speaking in a whiny, cracking and shaky voice as if she was emotionally distraught, and the next moment she was smiling coyly and responding in a “little girl” voice with an upturn in the final word of a sentence, like asking a question. All of this was contrived to make her seem like a small child, insecure, vulnerable and innocent. When Ford discussed the incident in question, along with the phony, cracking voice, she put on a facial expression of emotional pain; her whole demeanor was one of emotional distress and crying. However, throughout the hearing, not a single tear was shed! This suggests that the display of emotion was not genuine.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Some have suggested that the signs of deception displayed during Ford’s testimony might have been influenced by the fact that she was testifying before a Senate Committee and the TV cameras. But if you’ll remember, much of her career has been spent as a consultant, testifying before Boards and Committees. More recently Ford has been a Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University, and ultra-Left school that specializes in empowering women and girls to become confidant, dynamic and powerful in carrying out action to further the Left’s agenda, where Ford teaches large classes of students. While Ford’s performance in the hearing was designed to convince observers otherwise, she is completely comfortable and always in control when she’s in her element, in a conference room or classroom and the center of attention. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Excuses were given why Ford was unable to travel to Washington to testify before the Senate, such as fear of flying, claustrophobia, and fear of testifying before the Committee were all delay tactics. The only thing that Ford fears is the lie being discovered. When I think about Ford trembling with fear of going before the Committee, I’m reminded of the Disney classic where Brer’ Rabbit pleads with his captors, “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">I don't know how much money, fame, and celebrity Ford has been promised and also whether she is hoping to “make a difference” for other women who have made such accusations (collective justice). But something has induced her to put Kavanaugh in the center of this smear campaign, along with the coaxing of her entire support team of the worst of Democrat Hacks, Lawyers and Senators determined to block any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court and undermine the constitutional process of advise and consent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">As Senator Ted Cruz said recently commenting on the hearing, the Democrats are blocking the Kavanaugh appointment so the Supreme Court doesn’t have a conservative majority, so the Democrats can take over the House and Senate, so they can impeach President Trump and proceed to reverse the outcome of the presidential election of 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Democrats are not just destroying an innocent man and his family, they are not just destroying their own credibility, they are destroying the institutions fundamental to the survival of our constitutional government and to the rule of law under that constitution. The Constitution provides the process for electing a President, a process in place for over 200 years, one that leads to the peaceful transition of presidential power to the new President. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">In our Democratic Republic, many voters support candidates that don’t win an election and are disappointed that their choices for President or other offices lost. Part of what has made this form of government work in the United States is that the losing side will suck it up and commit to working harder over the next 4 years in an attempt to win the next presidential or other election. Likewise, the Constitution provides an orderly and dignified process for the duly elected President to nominate a new Justice and for the Senate to determine how to advise the President on this and to consider carefully whether to consent to the appointment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">When Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats started having an interminable mega-tantrum (as the immature and poor losers they are) and flew into a rage, spewing hatred and venom. There was and continues to be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, pulling their hair out by the roots and constantly kicking the family dog. They manufactured false “evidence” of Trump Campaign collusion with the Russians who were said to have dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Trump Campaign might have used to gain an advantage with the voters—in fact, none of this occurred. The Russians did not reveal any dirt on Hillary and the Trump Campaign refused to spread any disinformation about Hillary, including any information alleged to have originated with the Russians or with anyone else for that matter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Shortly prior to the completion of President Obama’s second term in office and to the 2016 Presidential Election, a time when the people had recently elected a Republican majority to the Senate, the people let the Senate know that they wanted to rollback most of Obama’s efforts to bring about “a fundamental transformation” of the United States that was necessary to accomplish Obama’s ultimate goal, to “Make America Worse Again (MAWA).” You’ve undoubtedly seen the characteristic blue baseball caps with the MAWA insignia, perhaps many, many times over the recent 8 years Obama was President.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Subsequently, in November of 2016, Donald Trump was elected President and Hillary Clinton was not, confirming the fact that the American people wanted a real change of direction for the country which included the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court (Trump had campaigned heavily on the promise to appoint such conservative justices if elected and the opportunity arose). As the totally bogus accusations and subsequent Mueller investigation of alleged Trump collusion with Russia to interfere with our elections, goes on forever “To infinity and beyond,” one of the few things we’ve learned from this is there was never any collusion, at least as far as the Trump Campaign was concerned. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">On the other hand, we have Hillary and the DNC paying millions of dollars for disgraced and seedy ex-spy Christopher Steele (through Fusion-GPS) to collect unsubstantiated dirt on Trump from the Russians. Hillary and the DNC colluded with the Russians through the Steele Dossier, and then colluded with the FBI and DOJ to use the Steele Dossier to facilitate the Mueller investigation and to obtain a FISA court writ allowing warrantless search and seizure of Americans on American soil, Americans who were in any way connected with the Trump campaign or later, the Trump Whitehouse.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly a matter of weeks prior to the 2016 Presidential Election, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. The Democrats were thrilled with the prospect of getting another leftist-leaning activist Justice on the Court to uphold such precedents as Roe v. Wade and to continually reimagine the Constitution in light of the prevailing leftist winds of the moment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">When Obamacare was passed by a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate along with a Democrat President but without a single Republican vote, Obama reminded disgruntled Republicans that “Elections have consequences.” The Republican majority in the Senate returned Obama’s words back to him as they declined to consider Obama’s nominee, Garland, for advise and consent. It was felt that the country had turned away from the Democrats’ policies, and now favored the Republican approach. With Obama’s “Lame-Duck” status, the changed mood of the country and a new Senate majority, the Senate elected not to consider Garland but to await the outcome of the Presidential Election to let whoever it was that won make that nomination. It is totally the prerogative of the Senate to consider or to decline to consider any nominee.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">I’m sorry for the Democrats missing out on a chance to take the Court further away from the Constitution, but that’s the way it goes down according to the Constitution. In fact, all Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, the President and many others in the government are required to swear an oath to uphold, support and protect the Constitution as the Highest Law of the Land. The Constitution does not provide for any Justices to be placed on the Court who will not live by that oath. Indeed, if we were truly following the Constitution today, there would be 9 conservative Justices seated on the Court (“conservative” means those who want to conserve, preserve, restore, and maintain the Constitution as the Highest Law of the Land).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Further, despite the Democrats’ feigned complete support for women, there is no sacrifice of women that the Democrats are not fully prepared to make in advancing their cause. Senator Feinstein had received Dr. Ford’s letter more than six weeks prior to the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings. In that letter, Ford was clear about her wishes that the contents of the letter be released to the Senate Judicial Committee so they could halt Kavanaugh’s being named to SCOTUS. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">At the same time, Ford was adamant that her name remain strictly confidential. Feinstein should have honored Ford’s request and immediately released the contents of Ford’s letter to the Senate Committee so that privately the parties could have been interviewed, the allegations investigated by the FBI, and any evidence or corroboration determined, all without revealing the accuser’s name, as she had requested. If Ford were, in fact, a victim of some untoward act or attack in the past, the refusal to grant her wishes of distributing the letter content but keeping her name confidential could have easily caused further emotional and mental distress.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The entire process could have been completed well before the official hearings with plenty of time to debate and commit further study to the issue as needed. But Feinstein’s office leaked the letter along with Ford’s name (Feinstein’s staff would not have forwarded the letter to any media outlet without at least Feinstein’s tacit agreement) to the media well after the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings had been completed. In an eleventh hour effort to block Kavanaugh’s appointment, Ford’s confidentiality was sacrificed, without her consent, for the “good” of the Democrat Party. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">There is widespread hatred among Democrats for President Trump, based on the mistaken belief, fostered and amplified by the lies of opportunistic Democrats and the Fake News Media, that Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 presidential election. Having never accepted Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Donald Trump, to this day Democrats have the fantasy that they can reverse the election outcome, place Hillary as President and allow her to trample the Constitution in the creation of an authoritarian socialist state. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Points of interest on the Democrats’ way to subverting the Constitution and destroying the country include preventing Trump from appointing constitutionalists to the Supreme Court or impeaching any such Justices once they’re confirmed to the Court, taking back majority rule of the House and the Senate, impeaching Trump and reversing the 2016 election. The Democrats have sworn to do whatever it takes to win this war, whether it means that they assassinate the character of a good man and an outstanding judge, destroy the process for the Senate providing advise and consent on the President’s nominations, throw any number of women under the bus, or stage a coup that sets up a Marxist government it is of little consequence if the Democrat agenda is advanced.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the Democrats committed to seeking out women who would agree, for a price, to falsely make sexual misconduct claims against Kavanaugh in order to remove him from the possibility of joining the Court. They have descended into the depths of criminal wrong-doing in suborning perjury of these women who have sworn false testimony against Kavanaugh to undermine due processes of our government in violation of the Constitution, all for their own vile and selfish purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">To win for themselves power and control over the people, the Democrats, Dr. Ford and her rabid supporters are also destroying what is left of credibility for any future "Me-Too" victims, now that, as a nation, we’ve explored at least in part the devastation of false accusations. We can no longer make the mistake of giving unmerited, full credence to any woman making a Me-Too allegation. In the Democrat alternative universe, no sacrifice of others (including traditional Democrat constituencies like minorities and women) is too great in the service of the Democrat Party. Is it a coincidence that Communists and Democrats share the same philosophy: “The End Justifies the Means?” If necessary, the Democrats will proceed over anyone's dead body to carry out their agenda.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">After the Senate Committee had evaluated the evidence and the affidavits of potential witnesses, the Democrats predictably complained that the allegations had not been fully investigated by professionals and demanded a one week further delay of the Senate vote on Kavanaugh for the FBI to complete their work and tie up loose ends of the investigation. To be certain nothing had been overlooked and that the Republicans did not appear to be obstructing a thorough confirmation process, an additional week was granted for the extended FBI investigation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Once this investigation was completed and the FBI report was read by the entire Senate, no new information was available and no allegation was accompanied by any substantiating evidence or corroboration. The Democrats were livid that, in their opinion, the scope of the FBI investigation had been too restrictive and they demanded more time for the investigation<i>. Republicans felt strongly that if the Democrats needed more time for what they considered a proper investigation, they should use some of the 60 wasted days during which Feinstein had willfully hidden Ford’s letter from the Committee before it was leaked to the media.<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Senator McConnell set up voting for the whole Senate on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate voted in favor of confirming Kavanaugh and he was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the Supreme Court the week of 10-15-2018.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Democrats, driven by their anger and rage at having their champion, the elite Hillary Clinton, beaten for the presidency by a rank amateur (and a man!) have forsaken their humanity and have been consumed by their hatred. Many Democrats are dedicated to taking back the House and the Senate so they can impeach President Trump. They also wish to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. Ultimately, the Democrat goal is to reverse the 2016 Presidential Election and appoint Hillary our new President.</span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "cambria math" , serif; font-weight: normal;"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">What this means is that the Democrats have stepped over the line one too many times. This time we are talking about Democrats in the House, Senate, Administration or other government office violating their oath of office, attempting to sabotage a presidential nomination by lying and completely making everything up out of thin air. By doing this, they are subverting the Constitution and seeking to destroy all that is good about our country. </span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Attacking the processes of the government, under the Constitution is to attack the Constitution and other foundations of our government. If these criminals are not hunted down, captured, charged with their crimes, prosecuted and punished appropriately in measure with the criminal act, the next time they feel they must disrupt a proceeding, they will be ten times worse and apply intimidation, threats, and violence to get their way.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-45443955088107308612018-10-11T23:45:00.000-06:002018-10-11T23:45:26.263-06:00<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus Inherited Mortality from </span></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">His Mother & Immortality from His Father</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">One of my friends on Facebook, John Hajicek, a self-named “Mormon Historian” and Curator, had posted the other day about the scriptural accounts of prophecies of the Messiah being a descendant of King David. He explained how Jesus’ genealogy could be traced through his step-father, Joseph, back to David.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">I posted in reply how I had learned as a boy that Joseph and Mary were cousins and that both were descended from David. John wrote back with a number of scriptural references, mostly from the New Testament, where it suggests Mary was a Levite by birth (not descended from David) and that when she married Joseph, both she and her son, Jesus, were counted as being of Joseph’s lineage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">I was intrigued by this and wanted to learn more about the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It didn’t make sense to me that the prophets would say the Messiah will be a descendant of David, he will be born in Bethlehem (the City of David), and will sit on David’s throne, and then he has to be adopted into Joseph’s line to claim David as his ancestor! I looked up the scriptures John recommended and then branched out to investigate further. I was surprised by what I read. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">There were so many different theories from notable Bible Scholars (from ancient and modern times), each with his own take on the subject, that I was reminded of the confusion, disruption and mishaps I’ve always speculated must have occurred on the construction site of the Tower of Babel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Theories were variously based on taking into account Jewish tradition and customs, levirate marriages, names being changed over the centuries, two reports in the New Testament on Christ’s genealogy with some significant differences between them, differing translations from Aramaic to Greek and Latin where word meaning can change only slightly and dramatically alter the course of history, and then how some experts feel both the Matthew and Luke accounts of the genealogy of Jesus (through Joseph or Mary) were fabrications to make Jesus' profile a better fit for being the Messiah! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Just a word about levirate marriages which I found interesting. If a man (A) marries a woman (B) and they don’t have any children, and man (A) dies without posterity, his brother (C) is expected to marry the widow (B). The firstborn male (D) of that union (C&B) becomes the legal son of the first husband (A) so he will have posterity. Subsequent children of the second brother (C) are considered his legal children. But when it comes to writing down the genealogy of these families, sometimes they’ll report that the first brother (A) was the father of son (D), sometimes they’ll report the second brother (C) as the father of son (D) and other times they’ll name both husbands of woman (B) as the father of son (D). Then, later on, when son (D) gets married and has sons, they might show up in the lineage of husband (A) or of husband (C) or both. How would you like to be researching families where you had several consecutive generations of levirate marriages?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Of course, the connection between King David and the Messiah is of tremendous significance to the Jewish people (the Chosen & Covenant People) as we are talking about one of the greatest Jewish kings, about the words and deeds of Jewish prophets, about the history of the Jews, and about the most precious of prophesies and promises made between Jehovah and the Jews. This is also of great importance to Christians and other students of the Bible as studying the prophets and witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy helps us learn more of Christ, helps us follow him and helps us work towards becoming more like him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">While I don’t want to minimize the link to King David, I believe that of much greater importance and impact to all of God’s children (all of mankind) is the fact that Jesus is a direct descendant, the Only Begotten, and the literal Son of God. Before the earth’s creation, God the Father promised to send a Savior. That Savior, a perfect and pure vessel, would take upon himself the sins of the world, voluntarily give up his own life and then take it up again to bring about the atonement and the resurrection. Mortal man could not accomplish this task, having no power over death. An immortal likewise could not accomplish this, having no power to lay down his life. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Only one has walked the earth having the innate ability and power to be that Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ, a being who inherited mortality from his mother and immortality from his father, could give up his life and then take it up again fulfilling his role in providing the Atonement and opening the gates of Resurrection for all mankind.<a href="https://www.facebook.com/ufi/reaction/profile/browser/?ft_ent_identifier=10218338307877727_10218348754138877&av=1314189019"><o:p></o:p></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/johnhajicek?fref=ufi" target="_self"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas> <v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"> <o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"> </o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape alt="John Hajicek" href="https://www.facebook.com/johnhajicek?fref=ufi" id="Picture_x0020_3" o:button="t" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 30pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 30pt;" target=""_self"" type="#_x0000_t75"> <v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"> <v:imagedata o:title="John Hajicek" src="file:///C:\Users\beogden\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"> </v:imagedata></v:fill></v:shape></span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/johnhajicek?fref=ufi" target="_self">John Hajicek</a> In the Bible, Jesus Christ was a carpenter’s son (Matthew 13:55) or the son of Joseph (Matthew 1: 23, 45); and his genealogy was consequently recorded as the lineal son of David (Matthew 1: 1, 1:20, 12:23, 21:9, 22:42, Luke 3: 23, 31), the seed of David according to the flesh (John 7:42, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8), and the root and offspring of David (Revelation 5:5, 22:16); and therefore of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14); whilst his mother Mary was evidently of the tribe of Levi, since her uncle was a Levite priest (Luke 1: 5, 8, 36, 55). Thus, he alone fulfilled prophecies concerning the Messiah inheriting the throne of David (1 Kings 2:45, Isaiah 9:7, Jeremiah 17:25).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-52057759935543496912018-10-07T00:37:00.001-06:002018-10-07T01:41:54.585-06:00Lies & Pecadillos - What's Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story, Part One<br />
1) Ford stated she was not motivated by politics but only wanted to do her civic duty by telling her story. When she said defiantly “I’m nobody’s partisan political pawn,” it seemed she was bragging that doing this was solely her idea. Ford denies being paid to do this, but she seems to be getting richer by the minute. At least three GoFundMe accounts have been set up in her name with a balance of nearly $1M which Ford plans to use to cover her expenses. <br />
<br />
Ford’s Democrat Activist Attorneys are working pro bono and are apparently paying for her airfare, hotel, and other expenses, raising the question of exactly what expenses were to be covered with her GoFundMe fortune. Ford’s attorneys work for the George Soros-funded “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” GoFundMe accounts are easily adapted to money laundering; a wealthy benefactor who wants to pay someone for services rendered but doesn’t want it known can make a million $1.00 donations using bogus names. Would you be surprised to learn that most of Ford’s $1M could be traced back to Soros? <br />
<br />
2) Ford admitted that at age 15 she decided she wanted to go to a party where there would be older boys, underage drinking, and other teenage activities that commonly occurred at such parties, all without adult supervision. She knew her parents would not approve of or allow her to go to such a party, so Ford went to the party without her parent's knowledge or permission. She knew her parents would be angry with her if they found out. What motivated her to go to that particular party? What was Ford looking for in going to this particular party? <br />
<br />
3) Ford doesn't remember even the year when the incident occurred. After considering a number of possible years, she claimed the incident occurred in the mid-1980s. However, by 1985, Ford would have been 18 years old and would have had a driver’s license. She testified that after the assault happened, she walked downstairs and out of the party house, leaving her best friend, Leland, the only girl in the house, alone with the boys Ford claimed had just attempted to rape her. She also says she can’t remember how she got to the party or how she got home, and no one has come forward to say they had given her a ride to or from the party. But if this indeed happened in 1985, she would have had her driver’s license and would likely have driven herself to and from the party, solving at least this mystery.<br />
<br />
By 1985, Brett Kavanaugh could not have been the one that assaulted her as he had graduated from high school in 1983, was no longer involved in the high school social scene and was attending college at Yale. When Ford began working with the lawyers Feinstein had referred her to, the Democrat Operatives that worked for the Soros-funded POGO group, they explained the timeline discrepancies in her story and convinced her to rethink the year she would allege the incident was to have occurred. Thereafter, the year of the alleged incident was 1982.<br />
<br />
The prosecutor from Arizona asked Ford in the special hearing, “How did you come to settle on 1982 after being so long uncertain as to the year of the incident?” Ford’s answer was measured and evasive, she leaned into the mic and said in her little girl voice with the last word being a turned up inflection (as if asking a question) “I can’t say the exact…date?” then she leaned back away from the mic signaling that’s all she’s going to say about that. <br />
<br />
4) Ford doesn't remember the exact location of the party house but says it was at least 8 miles from her home. Depending on which version of the headcount you believe, there were at least four boys and two girls at the party. Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and PJ Smyth were three of the boys present. Ford said a fourth boy was present, but she can’t remember his name. The two girls present were Ford and her friend Leland Keyser. Of those at the party, it is likely that one lived in that house. Since the others named present lived elsewhere, the boy with no name must have lived in the party house. It’s possible this boy, if indeed he existed, might have been identified through yearbooks or school pictures, the party house location might have been determined and the boy interviewed if the Ford Team thought he could corroborate her story. Apparently, they did not.<br />
<br />
5) Ford testified that she and her husband saw a marriage counselor in 2012 because of an ongoing argument during the renovation of the couple’s home. Ford insisted on and eventually got the second front door she needed as an escape route. At one of their 2012 sessions with the counselor, Ford claims she suddenly remembered the incident where she says she was sexually assaulted, a memory that had supposedly been repressed and forgotten for over 30 years. She related her story to her husband and her therapist at that time; it wasn’t until a later date that Ford would name her attacker as Kavanaugh. <br />
<br />
Another version of her story has her telling her husband about the attack before they were married. The therapist’s notes from that session were referred to by Ford in preparing her testimony and she showed the notes to the Washington Post reporter who wrote her story for the paper. But Ford has refused to turn her therapist’s notes over to the Senate Committee, without offering an explanation. It may be that her story is not confirmed in the therapist’s notes, or that the notes may indicate Ford mentioned another boy’s name as the attacker. Another discrepancy was this: A Palo Alto City building permit was issued for the Ford home and a second front door was installed in 2008 to serve as a separate entrance for a rental apartment being constructed during the home’s renovation.<br />
<br />
6) Ford says she’s 100% certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker. However, Ford did not name her attacker to anyone until sometime after the alleged 2012 counseling session with her husband and her therapist when she recovered her repressed memory of the events in question that are alleged to have happened some 36 years ago. It is a fact that the more time that passes after an occurrence such as this, the less chance exists of finding any evidence of the event. Likewise, it’s a fact that as the decades pass from an event the chance that memory of the event will remain intact becomes less and less likely. Repressed memories that are “recovered” are especially difficult, being at high risk of distortion and inaccuracy. <br />
<br />
Because of these immutable facts, very few cases that come to light many years after the event, as in this case, justify consideration, can be believed or can be acted upon. None of this is news to anyone today. Still, many suppose that in light of significant emotional impact despite the absence of real evidence or corroboration, a 36-year-old incident should be given equal weight and consideration with a 3-year-old case. Just like elections, facts have consequences that can’t be ignored. The odds of a 36-year-old accusation that lacks any evidence or corroboration successfully winning a battle with the accused are virtually zero.<br />
<br />
7) Following her escape from the assault she heard Kavanaugh and Judge loudly going downstairs, laughing and banging the walls. She stated that once the two boys were downstairs they were talking with the others, about Ford. She could not tell what they were saying. Asked if she couldn’t understand what they were saying or if she could not actually hear talking, she said she couldn’t hear them. Then how did she determine that once the two boys were downstairs the group was talking about her? She replied, “I just assumed, it was a social gathering, people would be talking.” What?<br />
<br />
8) All of the witnesses Ford named have provided statements saying they have no knowledge or recollection of a party such as that Ford described or of any sexual assault. In contrast, many friends and associates of Judge Kavanaugh wrote the Senate Committee vouching for the excellent character and good behavior of Kavanaugh.<br />
<br />
9) Feinstein was deceptive and violated the rules of the judiciary committee by keeping the letter secret from the chairman and other committee members for at least 60 days. She declined to question Kavanaugh about the accusations in the letter when she met with him before the confirmation hearings. Feinstein held Ford’s letter through the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings until it came time for the Senate to vote on the nominee. <br />
<br />
Ford had written Feinstein to prevent someone who had allegedly sexually assaulted a 15-year-old Ford from being seated on the Supreme Court by exposing the 17-year-old Kavanaugh’s misdeed. While Ford had requested that Feinstein keep her name confidential, the primary purpose of the letter was to get the letter out to the public and to the Senate Committee to prevent Kavanaugh from attaining higher office. It is interesting that, in preparation for sending her letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, Ford deleted her Facebook and Twitter social media accounts so there would be no paper trail to reveal the real Dr. Ford. <br />
<br />
10) No one in Feinstein’s office would dare do anything like releasing a confidential letter without at least tacit authorization from Feinstein. When this was leaked to the media, both the content of the letter and Ford’s name were made public. Committee members questioned as to why Feinstein failed to bring the letter to the Committee’s attention long before the formal hearings, and why it was leaked to the media. She turned very pale and became flustered, she stuttered a few times and looking down, she admitted she could not be certain it wasn’t someone in her office that leaked the letter.<br />
<br />
Under further questioning by the Committee, Feinstein claimed she held onto the letter to protect Ford’s confidentiality; but in fact, Ford wanted the letter released to the public, and at the same time she wanted her name held confidentially. Feinstein abused Ford’s trust by not releasing the letter earlier to the Senate Committee and then by the release of Ford’s name to the media without her consent. Senator Feinstein manipulated Ford and the situation such that maximum damage (and ongoing delays) was done to the Kavanaugh confirmation process. <br />
<br />
Feinstein’s sacrifice of Ford’s confidentiality was well worth it to the Democrats for the chaos it created. The breach of confidentiality caused a great deal of distress for Ford as there were reporters constantly hounding her, she received death threats, her family required security guards and had to leave their home and move from place to place to stay ahead of intruders. Feinstein also put Ford at risk in terms of having her come forward and testify under oath about her story. If this was a contrived and false testament, Ford could end up in prison.<br />
<br />
11) Ford said she was never told by Feinstein or her lawyers that the Senators on the judiciary committee would come to her in California to take her statement or that all could have been done in private. Ford, her lawyer, and Feinstein apparently decided, since Ford’s name and story were already in the public domain, that her statement should also be given publicly. Ford’s handlers are also guilty of abusing this woman by not giving her the option of keeping things private. To pursue the Democrats’ desired ends of scuttling Kavanaugh’s confirmation, any means necessary, including injuring Ford and placing her at significant risk, was fully justified.<br />
<br />
12) Ford stated the reason she did not want to come and provide a statement earlier was because of her fear of flying. However, she has taken many trips where she traveled by air to Hawaii, Tahiti, etc. She also flew to Delaware where she had been in hiding since the letter was leaked and she and her family were getting unwanted attention. <br />
<br />
If flying was a problem, why did she not just drive from Delaware where she was staying to Washington to meet with the Committee? I’m certain Ford’s lawyers are familiar with the current Democrat playbook and that they would have advised her to “delay, delay then delay again.” She said she did not know who was paying for the airfare from California and her hotel and other expenses.<br />
<br />
13) Even though she said she wanted to remain anonymous, she took on her pro bono lawyer team from the Soros-funded subversive organization “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” Her legal team advised her to take a polygraph test, and it was accomplished the first week of August, less than two weeks after she sent her letter to Feinstein. The polygraph test consisted of two questions, neither of which had anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh. <br />
<br />
For those who give credence to polygraph studies (which are not reliable enough to be used in a court of law in the U.S.), given that we don’t know which questions were asked, the most we can deduce from the information provided is that when she was asked two questions without mentioning or including Brett Kavanaugh, Ford’s responses (whatever they were, again not provided) seemed to be truthful. Since no questions included Kavanaugh, we have no hint from the Polygraph that says anything about the truthfulness of her story where it involves Kavanaugh. You can say Ford “Passed” a Polygraph test, but for all practical purposes, her Polygraph tells us nothing.<br />
<br />
Ford testified about her experience with this Polygraph test. She said, “They wrapped this thing around me (indicating her torso) and it seemed to be squeezing me so I couldn’t breathe. It went on forever and I was crying the whole time.” But this can’t possibly describe the Polygraph test that was administered to Ford: her test was short and she was not even asked anything about Kavanaugh. Ford is totally familiar and comfortable with Polygraph tests; what she’s describing here is not her experience, but the experience of another person, one who had phobias and underwent a Polygraph test that Ford witnessed. When asked if Ford’s Polygraph test was audio or video recorded, she stumbled a little, then said, “They had a computer there, so I, I, suppose…(mumble).” More deception (see #14 below).<br />
<br />
14) Questioning by the Arizona prosecutor explored Ford’s experience with Polygraphs. Ford was asked if she knew about Polygraph testing, counter efforts, how things worked and whether anyone had given her tips about taking a Polygraph. She was also asked whether or not Ford had ever tutored anyone else in how to take a Polygraph or ever given tips on taking one or how to counter such a test. To all these Ford coyly answered, “No, never.”<br />
<br />
Recently, a letter arrived at the Senate Committee from a man who had been in a relationship with Ford during the 1990s. He explained that he had witnessed Ford go over a Polygraph test in detail, including tips and counter-measures with a close friend who would be taking one in order to work at a government job. Contrary to her testimony, she apparently knows a lot about and is very familiar with Polygraph testing. Why should Ford lie about her knowledge and experience with Polygraphs?<br />
<br />
<br />
Unlike the weak and vulnerable victim character Ford portrayed for the Senate Committee and the public, Ford is, in fact, a strong, accomplished and learned person with a wide range of talents and abilities who is currently playing the role of a sexual assault victim in order to sink President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice for the Democrats. When Ford declares, “I’m nobody’s political pawn,” I believe her. <br />
<br />
What is crystal clear is this: Ford is undoubtedly a long-time Democrat Activist and True Believer who was pressured by multiple Democrat Party Operatives into falsely claiming that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. Ford’s confidentiality was sacrificed and her trust was betrayed by her fellow conspirators. She was also placed at significant risk of being prosecuted for her false testimony and her family has been threatened and intimidated because of the exposure.<br />
<br />
<br />
Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-55753110990336667872011-07-06T07:14:00.000-06:002011-07-06T07:14:56.753-06:00The Casey Anthony Verdict: Justice for Whom?The problem for the prosecution in this case is that while they provided a lot of circumstantial evidence to support elements of their case, even if we accepted their evidence without question, there remained significant and reasonable doubt that Caylee's death may have been accidental. Take the elements one at a time:<br />
<br />
A hair matching that from Caylee's brush and recovered from the trunk of Casey's car, had post-mortem banding consistent with a decomposing body. Experts also testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Casey's car showed evidence of a decomposing body having been in the trunk. One air sample was said to have high levels of chloroform present, while the other air sample, analyzed by a different lab, found low levels of chloroform present. One expert testified that chloroform would be expected to be found in a trunk air sample where a decomposing body had lain.<br />
<br />
Because of the inconsistencies regarding chloroform testified to by experts, there is reasonable doubt that Casey administered chloroform to Caylee: the evidence for this part of the prosecution's theory is just not there. On the other hand, it is agreed that Caylee's decomposing body more than likely lay in the trunk of Casey's car for some time. However, it is possible that following an accidental death, Caylee's decomposing body was placed in the trunk until a permanent resting place could be determined<br />
<br />
Whether or not Casey did a computer search for "How to Make Chloroform", there is no evidence that Casey had or exercised the capability to make chloroform or administer it to herself, Caylee or anyone else. There is insufficient evidence of Casey, or anyone, having administered chloroform to Caylee and this provokes significant and reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform.<br />
<br />
The duct tape that was found attached to Caylee's skull is the same brand as duct tape found in the Anthony home, but we have no assurance that the crime scene duct tape was from the roll kept at the Anthony home. Testimony of experts and others who had visited Caylee's swampy grave, established that the site had been tampered with and that people, animals, and the elements may have moved parts of Caylee's decomposed body around. The prosecution theory that the duct tape had been applied by Casey to the nose and mouth in an attempt to smother Caylee was not proven in regard to the positioning of the duct tape or as to who might have positioned the duct tape. There has been no report whether Caylee's hands and feet were bound. If someone had placed duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose to smother her, Caylee would have pulled the tape off with her hands. The duct tape theory is another element of the case that provokes reasonable doubt.<br />
<br />
The prosecution theorized that the motive for murdering her daughter was that Casey wanted to be a party girl rather than a mom. Reports have confirmed that Casey has been a "party girl" for most of her adult life, with little change in her partying after Caylee was born or even after Caylee was missing and presumed dead. She had no shortage of ready babysitters to take Caylee frequently so mom could party. Despite Casey's affinity for the high life, photos presented to the court documented a loving, happy relationship with Caylee; the child was well-nourished, well-developed, and well-dressed. There was no evidence or even rumors of neglect or abuse. In addition, scientists who study human behavior have noted that some people develop a psychologic disorder consistent with mania (which involves behavior such as that demonstrated by Casey during the thirty-one days when Caylee was "missing") as an expression of their deep and unresolved grief. Again, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's theory of motive.<br />
<br />
While in my "gut" I feel and believe, as many others do, that Casey is somehow responsible for Caylee's death, I cannot say that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable or incapable of developing and introducing enough solid evidence to remove the reasonable doubts discussed above. The Jury produced a correct verdict given the dearth of convincing evidence and the reasonable doubts that remained at the end of the day.<br />
<br />
In our American Legal System, a large percentage of those who are accused of deadly crimes have their day in court and receive justice (conviction or acquittal). Victims of the most violent and deadly crimes, on the other hand, rarely get their day in court. Victims are at the mercy of a legal system that is more interested in preserving the rights of alleged criminals and assuring they get justice rather than in seeking justice for the victims.<br />
<br />
While our legal system may have provided justice, according to the law, to Casey Anthony, where is the justice for Caylee? I’m afraid that many innocent victims like Caylee will be denied justice in this mortal world without significant improvement in our society and our legal system.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-1263662297694873702011-06-24T19:31:00.000-06:002011-06-24T19:31:32.188-06:00Should God be Erased From the Public Square?The latest effort to erase God from the Pledge of Allegiance was recently aired on the NBC network. The Founding Fathers believed that the people would only be able to retain their liberty and successfully self-govern under our unique Constitution if they remained a just, moral and virtuous people, living in accordance with the Laws of Nature (God's laws).<br />
<br />
Elimination of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance aired by NBC is another attempt by some people to purge all religious references from the public square, often on the mistaken belief that the Constitution created a wall of separation between church and state. While the Constitution does not create a wall between church and state, it expressly restrains the federal government from establishing a “national” religion and from interfering with the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
Those involved in airing the Pledge with “under God” edited out, by censoring free speech and meddling in the free exercise of religion are clearly violating tenets of the First Amendment. These people wrongly believe that the constitutional ban on the federal government establishing a state religion requires the removal of God and religion from all civil discourse or public display, and that this peculiar interpretation of the ban supersedes and justifies counteracting the constitutional prohibition against interfering with the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
If the majority of the people were to take a similar, extreme position on "separation of church and state" turned away from the Laws of Nature, ceased to recognize the Creator's hand in mortal affairs (including government) and the people failed to retain the character qualities of integrity, morality and virtue, constitutional guarantees could not prevent the degradation of liberties and civil rights, and “self-government” would dissolve into the tyranny of mob rule and ultimately result in chaos.<br />
<br />
Those who thought to erase God from the Pledge were ill-advised and exercised poor judgment. NBC is encouraged to take responsible remedial action in this regard to assure that such a breach of the public trust does not recur.<br />
<br />
Actively seeking to eliminate references to God and religion in the media and passively allowing this kind of censorship to go forward is no less bigotry than that exercised against race or gender, and is no less harmful to the nation, and to the confidence of the nation in the media.<br />
<br />
<br />
Steve Burke CEO NBC Universal steve.burke@nbcuni.com <br />
<br />
Mark Lazarus Chairman of NBC sports mark.lazarus@nbcuni.com <br />
<br />
Liz Fischer Vice President, Corporate Communications (212) 664-4825<br />
liz.fischer@nbcuni.com<br />
<br />
Kathy Kelly-Brown Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications & Media Relations (212) 664-3457 kathy.kelly-brown@nbcuni.com <br />
<br />
Adam L. Miller Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs (212) 664-7330 adam.miller@nbcuni.comBruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-80228303789492042212011-05-08T16:20:00.000-06:002011-05-08T16:20:18.954-06:00Can the Twin Plagues of Inflation and Joblessness be Abated?Recent unemployment figures show that we remain deep in recession despite the fake stock market gains due to the Federal Reserve propping it up. Money is being lent to Wall Street for non-productive activities to invest in bets on market trends and to speculate on and manipulate the price of oil and food commodities that increases the cost of gas and food to the consumer. At the same time, small businesses, the core of U.S. productive industry, cannot obtain credit to hire new employees or expand.<br />
<br />
The government does not consider energy or food costs in reporting falsely that we’re experiencing little inflation. In fact, we’re experiencing significant inflation in the cost of energy and food because of Wall Street speculation and the Federal Reserve printing billions of dollars and creating trillions of dollars to give to big banking institutions to keep them afloat despite their being insolvent.<br />
<br />
Many big businesses have a good reserve of cash on hand, but are reluctant to hire new employees or increase their productive activities because of uncertainty as to how new taxes and regulations will adversely affect their profitability. Many other businesses have been driven offshore by high taxes, stifling regulations and unreasonable Big Union demands, taking jobs offshore with them.<br />
<br />
Another factor that’s increasing the cost of food is government subsidies for ethanol production from corn; a significant number of acres that used to be planted with food corn (both for humans and for animal feed), are now planted with different corn strains that are only useful for ethanol production. Government meddling in this respect has increased corn ethanol production with the adverse effect of decreasing food corn production driving higher prices for all foods that depend on corn (i.e. corn products, poultry, eggs, dairy, and other meats). The Obama Administration’s continued refusal to develop domestic fossil fuel energy resources prevents a lot of job creation that we could have in establishing energy independence from less than friendly foreign sources subject to regional turmoil.<br />
<br />
To jumpstart our failing economy and put our people back to work, government must get out of the way with significant tax and regulation reform to bring jobs back to America, and the current imbalance of power between management and labor, in labor’s favor, promoted by government, must be reversed. Ethanol subsidies must be ended immediately, and an aggressive policy of allowing and encouraging domestic fossil fuel energy development must be undertaken.<br />
<br />
Congressional audit and control of the Federal Reserve is essential to promote financing of productive small businesses instead of non-productive Wall Street gambling and to prevent further devaluation of the dollar by printing money and adding billions of dollars to the money supply. Each day that passes that we fail to take these first steps towards economic recovery prolongs the recession, ruins formerly successful businesses, stifles innovation, and incurs further catastrophic losses for individuals, both in terms of assets like homes and retirement, and in their personal lives.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-35460383027894002762011-04-03T23:29:00.003-06:002011-04-03T23:43:10.314-06:00Can Japan Weather the Storm of Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster?<b><a href="http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/japanese_rebuild.php">Why the Japanese Government Can Afford to Rebuild: It Owns the Largest Depository Bank in the World, by Ellen Brown.<br />
</a></b><br />
The excellent article, discussed in this piece, about Japan’s ability to recover from the triple disasters is has recently suffered by utilizing the considerable resources of the country’s public central bank is from Ellen H. Brown, author of “Web of Debt”. In her book, Ms. Brown exposes the corrupt and decaying underbelly of the international banking cartel’s (IBC) death grip on world economies through its near total monopoly on the creation of money as debt.<br />
<br />
While the IBC creates nearly the entire money supply out of thin air as loan principal amounts (based on fractional reserve banking), the IBC does not create the money supply needed by those receiving loans to pay the interest on these loans. The additional money supply required to pay the interest on IBC loans must be obtained from the misfortune and losses of others. The IBC then pockets their earnings, usually moving this income to foreign shores, thus transferring over time the wealth of individual victim nations to a foreign oligarchy that only grows more powerful each day.<br />
<br />
Japan and China are examples of nations that have resisted the slimy tentacles of the IBC’s debt-bondage by having their own public central banks. China has fueled its tremendous economic growth with low or no interest loans to businesses (many of which, it is understood, do not have to be paid back). This allows Chinese businesses to produce goods and services at very low cost, permitting them to set extremely low prices for their goods. Low priced Chinese goods have attracted worldwide markets leading to China’s booming export trade and rapid economic expansion.<br />
<br />
Japan’s government owned central bank, Japan Post Bank (JPB), functions much the same way as the Chinese model outlined above. The Japanese government, through JPB, has a large amount of debt on its books, but there are important differences between the Japanese government’s debt and that of Portugal, Ireland or Greece.<br />
<br />
These European countries owe their debt (principal and interest) to the IBC, which can increase the interest rate charged, refuse to rollover any loan or deny further credit if the IBC lacks confidence in the country’s ability to repay the loan. The Japanese government owes its debt to itself alone, not to any counterparty, and charges itself a very low interest rate. JPB, using government debt money, makes loans to the Japanese people to spur economic growth and productivity.<br />
<br />
As JPB has expanded financial services over the last several years, many and varied foreign and domestic financial institutions (all of which are ultimately owned and controlled by the IBC) have expressed concern about Japan’s fulfillment of international trade obligations and are pressuring the Japanese government to “privatize” JPB and institute “international competitive conditions”. In other words, the IBC wants to capitalize on and freely pillage the wealth and economy of Japan without any competition.<br />
<br />
Current “international competitive conditions” for most countries of the world consist of a large number of banks that supposedly compete against one another for business. But the fact is, all these banks are owned and controlled by the country’s government chartered but privately owned central bank. The various central banks are, in turn, owned and controlled by the private IBC interests. The international standard of competition is the IBC monopoly (i.e. no competition).<br />
<br />
Arguments that public banking is socialistic and anti-American, and that our current banking system is based on the free market, just don’t hold water. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make and control money in the U.S., and our Constitution does not promote socialism. As far as free markets, the international banking system monopoly never was “free enterprise”, and is the biggest example ever of crony capitalism gone wrong.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages of our current international banking system include the fact that it is owned and controlled by IBC private interests, the IBC decides who gets credit at what cost (financing IBC friends and affiliates at favorable terms, while denying financing or reasonable terms to those less favored), the IBC manipulates money supply, most often increasing its supply out of proportion to productivity (i.e. by excess printing of money or by excessive creation of money as loans via fractional reserve banking), causing inflation and currency devaluation, and the workings of the IBC and its affiliate banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve go on in secret, behind closed doors.<br />
<br />
Public banks are owned by the people and controlled by representatives elected by the people. Weaknesses with public central banking are similar to those seen with the IBC system: politicians are also prone to direct favorable financing to their friends and supporters as a form of patronage, they are usually unable to resist inflating the money supply to meet their insatiable desire to spend, and they also prefer that their horse-trading deals be conducted behind closed doors.<br />
<br />
Where public banks participate in fractional reserve banking, the IBC system of creating money as debt, banks create ten times or more money as debt than they have in reserve and the money supply is expanded exponentially. Invariably, this practice leads to inflation, currency devaluation, and economic deterioration. To meet the needs of the people while avoiding these negatives, public banks should employ a system of 100% reserve banking.<br />
While there is no redress or accounting obtainable from the private, IBC interests, politicians periodically have to face their constituents when they run for reelection.<br />
<br />
If the people remain vigilant and demand restraint, fairness and transparency of their elected officials, the officials will respond appropriately or be removed from office. However, if people were to become complacent and neglect their responsibility to oversee their representatives’ actions, corrupt politicians controlling the public central bank could do little worse than the predatory IBC has done with the world’s money.<br />
<br />
Japan will need every resource it can muster, including abundant cheap credit from the JPB, to recover, cleanup and rebuild from its triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear emergency. If the JPB can avoid the many pitfalls of public central banking, and provide a real service by funding economic productivity and growth, Japan will weather this storm even as it has historically weathered severe storms in the past.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-81690871213058293582011-03-31T17:25:00.000-06:002011-03-31T17:25:13.553-06:00Napolitano Takes Credit for Alleged Improvements in Border SecurityWhen a radical Muslim jihadist, trying to blow up a plane over U.S. territory on a recent Christmas Day, failed to properly detonate his bomb, Janet Napolitano told us that government efforts to provide homeland security had been successful at preventing this terrorist attack. In point of fact, a number of red flags were raised to the government’s attention, predicting that this young jihadist would commit a terrorist act, but were ignored and the urgency and importance of the information available was not communicated effectively with the various U.S. intelligence units. Government failed in every way in regard to this terrorist attack. It was dumb luck and the courage of a few passengers on board that particular Christmas Day flight that prevented the tragedy that al-Qaeda had planned for America on that day.<br />
<br />
In regard to illegal immigration, Janet Napolitano informs us that, due to her Homeland Security efforts under the Obama Administration over the past two years, illegal border crossings are currently at the lowest levels since the 1970s, and seizures of illegal drugs from illegals crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S. and of cash and weapons from illegals crossing from the U.S. back into Mexico have increased. The Obama Administration would have the American people believe that all of their hard work on border security has paid off with favorable statistics confirming the government’s successes in this area. But as it has been said before: In order of magnitude, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.<br />
<br />
A slightly deeper look at these numbers reveals the spin that the Obama Administration is using to claim credit for what is being sold as improvement in border security. When the U.S. economy was growing and unemployment was at an all-time low, most illegal immigrants who crossed the southern border from Mexico into the U.S. came here to work; most found jobs that helped them earn money to provide for their families.<br />
<br />
Because jobs for illegals were plentiful, there was a dramatic surge in the numbers of illegals entering the U.S. illegally during this period. During most of the G. W. Bush presidency, most illegals who found work in the U.S. had their families follow them to America, while those who were unable to find sustainable work returned home.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of the Bush final term and during the past two years of the Obama presidency, our economy tanked due to the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie and other Bankster (think mobster) failed fraudulent, high-risk ventures and abuses at the expense of the American people. These high-rollers made trillions of dollars over the last decade by creating and manipulating their extreme-risk investments (think casino gambling) and secured huge profits and bonuses and for their CEOs, staff and shareholders.<br />
<br />
When the bubble burst and all the Ponzi schemes disintegrated, the housing market collapsed and all the financial institutions were found to be insolvent. Even after an infusion of trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and billions of dollars from the pockets of those who were abused in the process of the financial bubble creation, the American taxpayers, these financial institutions continue to distribute huge bonuses to their management and staff and continue to remain insolvent despite unprecedented and unwarranted public bailouts.<br />
<br />
These corrupt financial institutions were permitted by our government to privatize (and pocket) profits from their extreme-risk ventures while socializing their losses (sticking the bill for their bad behavior to the American taxpayer). In previous times, Wall Street and the monster banks provided investment capital and loans to all types of businesses that led to increased economic productivity and significant economic growth and prosperity.<br />
<br />
Currently, these banks are holding onto their cash or cautiously investing in Treasury Bills. Most loans are being made to Wall Street firms or being used for the banks’ own investing, once again, in the same risky, non-productive and dangerous financial instruments. Small businesses, the life-blood of the productive American economy, are being denied the credit they need to innovate, grow, expand and create jobs. These banks have also severely restricted and increased the costs to the American people of consumer credit, leading to a dramatic fall in consumer spending. With demand for consumer goods plummeting, businesses, large and small, across the country slowed or were closed leading to our current, persistent high unemployment.<br />
<br />
Enormous infusions of cash from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street banks and excessive government spending on pork-barrel projects, Stimulus, TARP and similar spending bills have temporarily propped up the stock market. However, government spending and the Fed’s “quantitative easing” have only made matters worse for the rest of the U.S. economy and the American people, prolonged the Great Recession with our jobless “recovery”, left millions of homeowners, drowning, underwater in their mortgages or facing foreclosure (the new “homeless”), and produced marked inflation that is currently threatening to collapse the dollar. Our government’s skyrocketing deficits and the Fed’s consistent abuse of the dollar will not only lead to continued devaluation of the dollar, but are likely to precipitate a switch from the dollar to another currency as the international currency of exchange and trade.<br />
<br />
This ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy has severely limited the number of jobs available for illegal immigrants, most of who had previously come to the U.S. to work. With a scarcity of jobs in a bad economy, I can believe that many illegals that were here to work, if they had no job and no welfare support, would return to their home countries, and that fewer illegals would be motivated to immigrate to the U.S.<br />
<br />
While I don’t believe Janet Napolitano has any idea how many illegal aliens cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. each day, I can accept that the number of illegal crossings may be decreased from the Bush years. If the absolute number of illegals crossing into the U.S. each day has really decreased, such a decrease is likely attributable to those seeking work deciding not to cross into the U.S. illegally, discouraged by the lack of jobs.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, U.S. Border States report markedly increased illegal border crossings by criminals peddling illicit drugs, human trafficking, and violence. Such an increase in criminals crossing into the U.S. would naturally increase the odds that border patrol agents would intercept a larger number of these criminals.<br />
<br />
Napolitano and Obama want to claim credit for decreased illegal border crossings. However, most of the decrease can be accounted for on the basis of policies put in place during the Bush Administration and the lack of jobs in the U.S. for illegals. When Napolitano boasts of increased border patrol seizures of illicit drugs and weapons from criminal illegals, she is unintentionally admitting to the current tidal wave invasion of illegal alien criminals bringing violence and lawlessness into the Border States with them.<br />
<br />
The borders are really more porous than ever with a greater percentage of criminal illegal aliens entering the U.S., all because the Obama Administration is not really serious about border security. If the U.S. were truly serious about border security, we would have a fence the length of our southern border. If we really didn’t want illegals to climb the border fence, we would electrify it. If we really didn’t want illegals to cut electricity to or tear down the fence, we would build interval towers along the fence line with remotely operated sniper rifles to pick off any illegals climbing over, through or seeking to damage the fence.<br />
<br />
Do we need to militarize our southern border like they have between North and South Korea with soldiers and artillery and drones? How serious are we about border security? Serious enough to do whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration?<br />
<br />
If we ever did get truly serious and put into place such measures, it is doubtful that any would-be illegal alien would ever be harmed; once the word gets out that the border is defended by an electrified fence and sniper towers or soldiers, artillery and drones, few would be foolish enough to test these defenses.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-66159824231643568662011-02-10T18:12:00.001-07:002011-02-10T20:35:19.459-07:00Mandated Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulbs Are Environmentally Unsafe & UnsoundI’m passing along this email warning about CFL light bulbs that can start burning and spread the fire to your home. It should be noted that the ballast in these bulbs (what triggers the light bulb when you flip the switch) contains mercury, a toxic “heavy metal”. Any broken bulb or any burning of ballast releases mercury into the environment-your home. Disposal of used CFL bulbs cannot be with regular trash disposal, but they must be recycled and processed as a “hazardous material”. To date, there is no uniform protocol established for the safe handling and disposal of CFL bulbs.<br />
<br />
Because CFL bulbs are slightly more efficient at producing light (they produce more light and less heat per unit of electricity) a nearly worldwide environmental movement is driving lawmakers to mandate conversion of home and business lighting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs">from incandescent bulbs to CFL bulbs</a>. However, despite all the hype about the theoretical benefits of promoting CFL bulbs, such conversion can lead to either cost savings and environmental benefits or to increased expense and pollution, depending on the particular circumstances.<br />
<br />
Home or business lighting with incandescent bulbs provides significantly greater contribution to heating needs than CFL lighting. In a cool climate with hydroelectric power and fossil fuel heating, exchanging incandescent lighting for CFL lighting would shift a portion of energy consumption from clean and cheaper hydroelectric power, to the increased expense and pollution associated with burning fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Despite these and other confounding factors, the average energy consumer is likely to experience a small decrease in electricity consumption and a lower electricity bill which may or may not be noticeable to the homeowner. In addition, the manufacturing and handling of CFL bulbs requires more energy consumption than that of incandescent bulbs. The higher cost and energy usage in manufacturing and handling associated with CFL bulbs may offset or exceed any theoretical cost/energy savings from their use. Because of the false belief that CFL bulbs are good for the environment and conservation, incandescent light bulbs have been outlawed in the U.S. and in many other Western Countries and they will soon be unavailable for purchase here or anywhere.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this is another misguided effort to control the people, from those who claim to want to do the right thing for the environment and who believe religiously in Global Warming and want to stave off its man-made effects. Typically, these people neglect to calculate the collateral effects and cost of action they propose, endorse and enforce on the rest of us. In this case, the Environmental Lobby and lawmakers subject to their influence, have irresponsibly neglected the full balance of negative effects on the world.<br />
<br />
Obvious negatives include higher prices for CFL bulbs. Some have claimed that General Electric (GE) stands to benefit greatly from the sale of their CFL bulbs, and that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs was done mainly to help GE make money. While it is clear that with Cap & Trade, the Obama administration and the Democrats are colluding to enrich GE in return for GE support (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism">Crony Capitalism</a>), GE recently closed their massive incandescent light bulb manufacturing plant in Virginia adding to high regional unemployment, and China is now the largest producer of CFL bulbs for the world. Outlawing incandescent bulbs has thus added to the steady loss of American manufacturing and jobs to overseas interests.<br />
<br />
The increased cost of CFL bulbs is not just due to markup or to increased costs associated with materials and manufacturing, but is also due to the cost of necessary, proper hazardous waste handling from the collection of materials, to manufacturing, and through disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste is often contracted for and shipped to third world countries for storage.<br />
<br />
Other negative effects include those on the environment of spreading mercury throughout our communities with potential human exposure, causing brain and other nervous system damage, and then ending up in hazardous waste landfills poisoning the earth. CFL bulbs also expose humans to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF), Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy, and low levels of UV light, which may have adverse effects on the human body. Additionally, CFL bulb light quality is inferior to that of the incandescent bulb, making all visual inspection, from that of patients by their doctors for signs of disease, to that of the subject of the visual arts and design, to that of products for defects by manufacturers, more difficult and less revealing. There are also a number of reports suggesting that CFL lighting can adversely affect health, mood, psychological well-being, and those with pain syndromes and certain skin conditions.<br />
<br />
If you believe that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs should be repealed, please contact your government representatives and let them know your feelings on this issue. Howard M. Brandston, a lighting engineer who has done a great deal of research and referencing in regard to these issues, makes his efforts available on his <a href="http://www.concerninglight.com/commentary.html#article2">website</a> for the public. In addition, a group opposed to outlawing incandescent light bulbs, “Free Our Light”, has set up a <a href="http://freeourlight.org/">website</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Our-Light/176502899059621">Facebook</a> page where you’ll find information about this issue and you can sign a petition and communicate with like-minded people.<br />
<br />
<b>Forwarded Email Warning<br />
<br />
Below is a picture of a CFL light bulb from my bathroom. I turned it on the other day and then smelled smoke after a few minutes. Four inch flames were spewing out of the side of the ballast like a blow torch! I immediately turned off the lights. But I'm sure it would have caused a fire if I was not right there. Imagine if the kids had left the lights on as usual when they were not in the room. I took the bulb to the Fire Department to report the incident. The Fireman wasn't at all surprised and said that it was not an uncommon occurrence. Apparently, sometimes when the bulb burns out there is a chance that the ballast can start a fire. He told me that the Fire Marshall had issued reports about the dangers of these bulbs.<br />
<br />
Upon doing some Internet research, it seems that bulbs made by “Globe” in China seem to have the lion’s share of problems. Lots of fires have been blamed on misuse of CFL bulbs, like using them in recessed lighting, pot lights, dimmers or in track lighting. Mine was installed in a normal light socket. I bought these at Wal-Mart. I will be removing all the Globe bulbs from my house. CFL bulbs are a great energy saver but make sure you buy a name brand like Sylvania, Phillips or GE and not the ones from China.<br />
</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNWsTwfhsVH4Waet4yCuVdzfGQAgHceHdeWBZyea8P5913ioERbQALYOaV4TuUEEiqCCGIVthaHB7VKisKlx2rf-gU0L1nsm9-yanp2Ubqc9ZtNM1hC9zDsBvyuIaAFgsj_XRHNte7f1mQ/s1600/CFLbulbsUnsafeUnsound.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="239" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNWsTwfhsVH4Waet4yCuVdzfGQAgHceHdeWBZyea8P5913ioERbQALYOaV4TuUEEiqCCGIVthaHB7VKisKlx2rf-gU0L1nsm9-yanp2Ubqc9ZtNM1hC9zDsBvyuIaAFgsj_XRHNte7f1mQ/s320/CFLbulbsUnsafeUnsound.jpg" /></a></div>Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-5689932807915837572011-02-01T19:32:00.000-07:002011-02-01T19:32:16.282-07:00Is the Tea Party Ducking Social Conservative Issues?There is broad agreement among Tea Partiers on issues of the economy, jobs, fiscal responsibility, Obamacare and adherence to the Constitution, especially in regard to cutting government spending. However, rifts in this coalition become apparent when the major cause of current government overspending and future insolvency, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), is considered for modifications that would produce real savings and sustainable entitlements.<br />
<br />
Similarly, there does not appear to be as wide-spread support among Tea Partiers for a good number of constitutional issues that don’t involve commerce, fiscal matters, and smaller government, including many so-called conservative “social issues”. A good number of Tea Partiers believe that other priorities must take precedence at this time when our nation is in an extreme economic/fiscal crisis and the fact that our judicial system and leaders in Washington are moving the country away from our traditional constitutional republic towards a totalitarian and redistributionist “nanny” state.<br />
<br />
Many, even members of the Tea Party movement, have been critical of other Tea Partiers expressing their belief that social issues should also be addressed. While I may not agree with all that’s said on social issues, I do commend anyone who stands up for freedom, the Constitution and other Tea Party values, and I stand fully behind their right to speak their mind as dictated by their conscience. Any honest person understands that no one person or group speaks for the entirety of the Tea Party movement. It is the Left that seeks to silence any opposition voice. There is no place in the Tea Party, or for that matter, among any people believing in freedom, for suppression of differing or opposing ideas.<br />
<br />
“Social issues” can indeed be controversial and divisive, as many of the primary principles espoused by the Tea Party movement can be; but being controversial or divisive does not make them any less valid. In addition, these issues are not foreign to rights expressed as God-given in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<br />
<br />
The Constitution puts into law the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights cannot be limited in any way except by “due process”. Due process in consideration of the right to life is exemplified by the lengthy court process involved in the eventual execution of a person sentenced to death under the law. This kind of consideration, which we provide to the most evil of criminals, is entirely lacking in abortion, where the life of the innocent unborn is terminated without a hint of due process.<br />
<br />
No one educated in the field of biology rejects the fact that, at fertilization, life begins with a full complement of genetic material that identifies the life as human. It is clear that at some point after fertilization and during gestation, this life becomes a living, breathing, self-aware and feeling person. Controversy surrounds the question of exactly when a human life becomes a person. Traditionally, life was thought to begin at “quickening” when the baby’s movements inside the womb are first felt by the mother, and personhood was thought to begin at birth.<br />
<br />
Today, we know that life begins at fertilization, and that the fetus develops, in utero, qualities that confer personhood. With modern ultrasound we can see the fetus startle in response to a loud noise, some will be sucking their thumb, and during abortions the fetus is seen to grimace, scream, and recoil with physiologic pain responses to the operator’s probe. In addition, it is apparent that even the tiniest of premature infants in Newborn Intensive Care, are born with their own personalities and clear cut likes and dislikes, respond to parent’s faces and voices, and respond to positive and negative stimuli in an organized fashion.<br />
<br />
The dialogue about abortion has been co-opted by those in favor of abortion by expressing the two predominant viewpoints as either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. Since the choice they are talking about involves the willful termination of a life, the correct term for those who want to be able to choose abortion is “Pro-Death”. Abortion takes the life of a human being based solely on the interests of a second party, the pregnant woman, without any regard for the baby’s rights. The aborted baby is denied his right to life, his right to enjoy liberty, inheritance rights he may have had to property, and his right to pursue his own happiness, all without due process. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Death sentiments continue to run hotly among the American people, and controversy surrounding abortion is unlikely to diminish over time. Abortion is very much a constitutional issue that involves the freedoms of everyone and cannot be ignored.<br />
<br />
Gay activists insist on special rights and recognition that are contrary to many peoples’ religious views. These activists want to change the definition of marriage, force full fellowship with organizations that are opposed to the gay lifestyle, and silence “hate speech”, which includes reading scripture or preaching in church against the destructive gay lifestyle. Gay activists want to be able to “marry” the same-sex partner they love, and that gay “family” to be recognized and appreciated the same as traditional marriage between and man and a woman with a real family. These activists claim that all they want is equal rights, when they already have equal rights and what they are asking for is special or “more-equal rights”.<br />
<br />
In conformance with the Constitution and most state laws, all citizens have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, while no one has the freedom to “marry” someone of the same sex. There is no inequality inherent in these laws. There are many established cultural norms (often founded on religious beliefs) written into law, that few responsible adults would question.<br />
<br />
For example, adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with a child, even if they love each other and the child or family give their consent. Adults do not have the right to marry a sibling or parent. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with animals. This fully conforms with the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, with Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based, and with thousands of years of multi-cultural tradition that has worked successfully to preserve and sustain society and culture.<br />
<br />
Another example is adoption agencies that hold religious beliefs that oppose gay adoption and raising children in that environment, being forced to allow gay adoption or cease doing adoptions. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of free association, free speech and the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. The Left also seeks to nullify or restrict the constitutional right to free speech by suppressing any views that oppose the current administration, the right to “keep and bear arms” (where keep means possess and store and bear means carry, display and use), and the right to work free of union control if so chosen by the workers with a secret ballot and without intimidation. While these anti-Constitution attacks do not deal directly with the economy, jobs or fiscal responsibility, the persistent assault on liberty cannot be ignored and must be countered.<br />
<br />
Once the country is back on the path to restoration of economic/fiscal and governmental constitutional practices and principles, these social issues will need to be addressed with some urgency. Basic human inalienable rights can be put on the back burner only so long and at great risk to freedom. True freedom and our Constitution cannot exist if some in the country are more free than others and where any constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-84293654454017450022011-01-28T18:31:00.000-07:002011-01-28T18:31:13.667-07:00Egyptians Protest Against Mubarek and For FreedomThere's little question that the Egyptian people are protesting in resistance to tyranny, or that Mubarek has abused human rights and exercised totalitarian oppression of the people in the process of maintaining his 30 year rule. The Mubarek regime justifies its oppression as the only effective means of preventing the violent overthrow of its government and its replacement with an even more tyrannical regime. The people have clearly suffered under Mubarek’s rule, they no longer (if ever they did) subscribe to this justification for oppression, and are seeking a change in government. The Egyptian people, as all mankind, have a Natural Law right to the liberty and self-determination that they seek and that has long been withheld from them.<br />
<br />
While the current mass protests in Egypt may indeed precipitate a change in government, the use of violence by either the protesters or the government is deplorable and is only destructive to the causes of either party. The use of violence in this type of mass popular uprising, where an unarmed people face a heavily armed and mechanized military force, the people will suffer more casualties and a higher rate of defeat, unless there is a significant mind-set change in the troops, military and other political leaders. If the current protests do lead to a change in government, it remains unclear whether such change will improve or diminish liberty for the Egyptians.<br />
<br />
As freedom loving Americans, we can certainly identify and empathize with the desire of the Egyptian people to be free. However, regardless of American commercial or political interests in Egypt (which are undeniably significant), it is not our place to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, one way or the other. The question, then, is how do we support the Egyptian people in their quest for freedom without intervening inappropriately in internal, sovereign affairs? While we can provide moral support in terms of world reporting on the protests and our government and public opinion leaders, and the American people speaking out in support of the people, anything more than this could easily be interpreted as inappropriate meddling, and could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.<br />
<br />
The Egyptian Army and Police have kept Mubarek in power all these years. While the U.S. has worked with Mubarek by default, in order to have dealings with Egypt, the U.S. has in no way "propped-up" the Mubarek regime at the expense, or promoted its oppression of the Egyptian people. Continued efforts to encourage the Egyptian government, whether changed or not, to conform to the principles of freedom and human rights, including the right of self-determination, must be maintained.<br />
<br />
The real danger is that many groups and organizations that do not have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart, including their right to freedom and self-determination, are seeking to co-opt<br />
the current power of the people for their own designs of imposing different tyrannies. If the current government is incapable or unwilling to supervise the peaceful transfer of power to a new government that will hold free elections and respect the rights of the people, it is likely that the Mubarek government will disintegrate, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by one or the other of these totalitarian groups, leaving the people no better off, and perhaps even worse off, than they were under Mubarek.<br />
<br />
Egyptian President Sadat, a leader who was largely responsible for Egypt signing on to a major agreement of cooperation and peace with Israel (the first such agreement between an Arab nation and Israel in modern times), was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time Alman-al-Zawahiri<br />
was a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. After being jailed for his terrorist activity, he became the mentor of Bin Laden, and currently serves as second in command of al Qaeda.<br />
<br />
The Muslim Brotherhood, despite Mubarek's tremendous oppression and counter-terrorism efforts, has continued to spread blood and horror throughout Egypt, spread terrorism beyond Egypt's borders with Hamas, al Qaeda and others, and continues to pursue the violent overthrow of the Mubarek government so they can impose an Islamic Totalitarian State. These folks, and many others like them, are not the good guys. Egypt is at great danger at this time of ending up like Gaza (ruled by Hamas), or more recently, Lebanon (ruled by Hezbollah).<br />
<br />
Whether or not countries seeking freedom and self-determination succeed in their efforts, or fail, leading to more tyranny, is of considerable interest and import, not only to the citizens of the countries seeking freedom, but to the peace and security of all nations of the world. But the truth may be that there is precious little peace and security in store for the future. Perhaps the world is fated to descend into terrorism, anarchy and totalitarianism, and resistance is futile.<br />
<br />
I pray for people everywhere seeking freedom, and especially now for the people of Egypt, that they may achieve their righteous goals and enjoy the blessings of liberty.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-41058551722483575552011-01-26T02:24:00.000-07:002011-01-26T02:24:52.881-07:00The Power to Make & Control Money Derives From Natural LawIn the charter documents of the United States, the Founding Fathers highlighted Natural Law from which mankind’s unalienable rights are derived, including the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These natural and unalienable rights, especially with regard to property and the pursuit of happiness, necessarily involve economic freedom and free enterprise. Natural Law, the Founders related, also defined and restricted the role of government to that of securing these natural rights to the people, without otherwise getting in the way of the individual’s pursuit of happiness. The Constitution, based on Natural Law, grants specifically limited powers for the sole purpose of enabling the federal government to protect and preserve these rights.<br />
<br />
One of the major tasks of government is to protect the nation’s lives, liberty, property and economic freedom from foreign invasion. Primarily for this purpose, the Constitution provides the federal government with the power to raise and command military forces in the nation’s defense against foreign military attack. The Constitution, in granting the government the power to make and control money, also provides for the defense of the country from another form of foreign invasion and attack, that of the International Banking Cartel, which through its ownership and control of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve’s absolute monopoly to make and control money, seeks to ensnare all Americans in debt-bondage and precipitate boom and bust cycles that lead to the systematic, legalized theft of American property.<br />
<br />
The monopoly power to make and control money was usurped by the Federal Reserve while the nation’s leaders stood by helplessly, silently complicit in the construction of this most egregious form of Corporate Statism. This wholly, privately owned business (there is NO government ownership or control of this business) is strictly controlled by foreign banking interests, who operate this government-granted monopoly with the singular goal of acquiring America’s wealth without respect to natural rights. Only by restoring the power to make and control money to the Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution, can the federal government fulfill its Natural Law role in defending the nation against this form of foreign invasion and in securing our natural rights to economic freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness.<br />
<br />
Some see the call for restoration of the power over money to government as a departure from free enterprise principles in favor of centralized, typically inefficient and imprudent government control. However, the Federal Reserve banking system, as a government-granted, Corporate Statism monopoly, never was free enterprise, it selectively dispenses financial advantages to its crony businesses thereby removing the effects of free market competition, and its persistently imprudent actions have led to massive erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power and to recurrent periods of economic chaos and collapse.<br />
<br />
In addition, there is a clear duty of government to protect and preserve Americans’ natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in defense against economic invasion, manipulation and conquest by the foreign, International Banking Cartel. Protection of economic and property rights by the constitutional power over money is no less a Natural Law role of government than that of maintaining military forces to defend against military assault.<br />
<br />
The federal government has the responsibility, duty and authority to protect America’s property and economic freedom, and can and should restore the power to make and control money to Congress. The concept of the individual States sponsoring their own public banking system, minimizing the power and negative effects of the Federal Reserve banking system monopoly on a Statewide basis, and promoting State commerce, industry, employment and prosperity, is a natural function of State’s rights and sovereignty in the protection of its citizens’ rights, and is complimentary to and does not conflict with the federal power over money.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-3300059753438529922011-01-04T19:08:00.000-07:002011-01-04T19:08:37.931-07:00Why Michael Steele should be re-elected Chair of the RNCThe truth is that elections in 2009-2010 represent one of the greatest routes of the Democrat Party in history with huge Republican gains across the country. While Michael Steele presided over the RNC during this incredible period of Republican success and he should be commended for his hard work and the successes of the Republican Party, Mr. Steele cannot be given all the credit for this. On the other hand, the greatest complaint about Mr. Steele is that he failed to raise sufficient funds that might have permitted even more Republican candidates to successfully campaign for office, and even went into significant debt in an attempt to help these candidates. While it is true that RNC fund raising suffered under the direction of Mr. Steele, he likewise does not deserve most of the blame for this.<br />
<br />
Throughout the period from 2008-2011, the people rose up in a nationwide grassroots movement (Tea Party, 9/12 Groups, and others) to protest, not only the policies, edicts, principles and lack of listening to the people of the Democrat Party which had shifted markedly to the Left, but also those of establishment Republicans, who had abandoned many of the basic tenets on which the Republican Party was based and “lost their way”, primarily in regard to fiscal responsibility and morality (especially in reference to political corruption).<br />
<br />
“We the people” determined to promote, from the grassroots, the nomination, campaign and election of good, honest candidates we believed would adhere to constitutionally conservative principles and shun corruption, and candidates that would listen to and act based upon the will of the people. This people’s movement intentionally functioned largely within the Republican Party rather than forming a third party which would be likely to dilute and divide conservative will and benefit the Left. This grassroots strategy was calculated to replace both Democrats and establishment Republicans who had failed the American people.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, establishment Republican Party leaders, acting primarily through the RNC in a top-down fashion (RNC decisions imposed from the top down to the local levels), based their strategy on a singular goal of Republicans “winning elections” at the expense of promoting higher quality candidates. This strategy was directly at odds with that of the people, and in many instances the RNC supported establishment candidates across the nation, even in the nomination and primary processes, in direct competition with grassroots candidates supported and promoted by the people. The people quickly learned to support quality individual candidates and the myriad cause groups accepting donations, rather than contributing to political parties that would use those funds to continue establishment people and practices and thwart the American people’s struggle to reform American politics.<br />
<br />
This alienation of the American people by the establishment Republican Party (RNC), coupled with the people’s movement strategy of donating to individual candidates and causes, is the single most direct cause of the RNC’s failure to raise the desired funds. Of all the establishment Republican Party leaders, at least Michael Steele, more than most others, appropriately acknowledged and supported the people’s Tea Party movement where he could; this support for the people cost Mr. Steele dearly in terms of establishment Republicans supporting his chairmanship of the RNC. In addition, Mr. Steele provided support to non-establishment candidates once they had won Republican nomination.<br />
<br />
The fact that Mr. Steele took the RNC into debt leading up to the 2010 elections, rather than reflecting fiscal irresponsibility, is evidence of his deep commitment to helping elect Republicans to office despite sagging donations to the RNC. Similar commitment was echoed by many of the citizenry who, having exhausted available funds, made donations to worthy candidates from their credit cards. In addition, nearly every candidate for public office goes into debt for campaign expenses. Do detractors contend that this depth of commitment, where people, organizations and candidates are willing to go into debt to support their cause (an expression of free speech), should be condemned?<br />
<br />
During the 2008-2011 season there has been dramatic “climate change” to the political environment, I believe for the better. There is a new crop of leaders across the country determined to carry out the will of the people in changing the direction of the country from a freefall into the abyss of socialism and poverty to a return to the Constitution, harmony with Natural Law, preserving unalienable rights, and to recovery of American economic prosperity and employment, not just for Wall Street, Giant Banks and Financial Institutions and other Favored Large Corporations, but for Main Street and the small businesses and the people who live and work there and continue to suffer under the heavy hand of misguided government intervention, profligate deficit spending and excessive taxation.<br />
<br />
With due public diligence and oversight, future election cycles are likely to further improve the numbers of quality leaders elected to public office. American political parties that respect, honor and respond to the will of the people will thrive. Those that refuse to reform will continue to suffer the consequences.<br />
<br />
Michael Steele’s RNC Chairmanship, while at times considered corrosive by establishment Republicans, cannot be justly criticized for having managed a Republican landslide with severely limited funds. In addition, the restricted ability of the RNC to raise funds is directly due to establishment Republican practices and attitudes, not to Mr. Steele’s chairmanship.<br />
<br />
Given the circumstances under which Mr. Steele had to function, his performance as Chair of the RNC has been exceptional. Based on this performance, and if Mr. Steele truly is the face of needed Republican Party reform that he seems to be, I believe Michael Steele has more than earned another term as Chairman.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-11568361570177744492010-11-14T21:24:00.078-07:002010-12-05T09:06:39.878-07:00The Great Recession: what is the root cause and is there a way out?<i>(Updated 12/05/2010)</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>Subprime Mortgage: a mortgage given to an individual who is likely to default on payments and the mortgage as a whole.</i></b><br />
<br />
The narrative promoted by Obama and the Democrats and passed along to the public by the lame-stream media, is that eight years of Bush administration policies, cronyism with big corporations and Wall Street, and war-mongering with loss of U.S. treasure on contrived foreign wars led to the collapse of the housing sector and U.S. financial markets, which has caused our current Great Recession with volatility in financial markets affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans, the loss of U.S. manufacturing industry, high unemployment and business stagnation.<br />
<br />
The story goes on to claim that because of Obama policies, bailing-out and taking-over private companies, and the high level of government spending under the Obama administration working in concert with a Democrat majority in Congress, significantly deeper and more painful economic disaster has been averted by stimulating the economy and saving or creating millions of jobs.<br />
<br />
Further Democrat narrative claims that the new Obama financial law brings much needed regulatory control of financial markets that prevents Wall Street from taking the kind of risks that they took with subprime mortgage derivatives that led to the financial collapse. The narrative also claims that the new financial law frees the taxpayer from ever having to pay for anymore bail-outs of companies “too-big-to-fail”.<br />
<br />
While this grand Democrat myth seems plausible on the surface and has a certain appeal to a public that has been much abused by the excesses of Wall Street and the loss of gainful employment by businesses moving offshore and deserting everyday Americans, there is the minor annoyance that the facts just don’t support the story.<br />
<br />
In fact, the collapse of housing and financial markets, the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and our current Great Recession were brought about and then worsened by failed Democrat policies that persist in supporting unacceptably high-risk Wall Street ventures based on taxpayer-guaranteed, subprime mortgages that Democrats continue to encourage, and future government-mandated, tax-payer-funded bail-outs of failing “too-big-to-fail” companies that was written into the new financial law.<br />
<br />
The new Obama Financial Law canonizes for select, large financial companies that profits are privatized while losses are socialized (i.e. if these big firms undertake high-risk ventures and make huge profits, they will pocket the gains; however, if in taking on high-risk ventures they lose big, their losses will be absorbed by the government with taxpayer funds). Some call this close relationship between government and large corporations State Capitalism, but a more appropriate term would be National Socialism (from which the German National Socialist or Nazi Party name was taken and whose precepts Hitler and the Nazi Party embraced).<br />
<br />
It is also the inconvenient truth that Democrat policies have produced the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and Obamacare, the new financial law, the promise of higher taxes and Democrat anti-business rhetoric has dramatically increased the costs of doing business and created such uncertainty that American businesses are virtually paralyzed. While large, government-favored financial institutions have been showered in taxpayer funds to keep them strong, small banks and businesses on Main Street have been abandoned by the federal government and hung out to dry.<br />
<br />
Beginning with the Clinton administration, Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage banks were coerced by the Democrats to give mortgages to low-income families so these families could participate in home ownership and enjoy some of the economic benefits of the middle-class, a seemingly noble humanitarian goal.<br />
<br />
While it's a worthy goal to want to help as many low-income citizens as possible join middle-class America through home ownership, what may have seemed initially like a blessing has now become a curse. In the medical profession's <i>Hippocratic Oath</i> it encourages physicians to do all they can in the interests of the patient, with this final caveat: <i>But above all, <b>DO NO HARM</b>.</i> <br />
<br />
Since the mid-1990's almost all lenders have been making subprime and <i>creative</i> mortgages. These loans are called subprime because the homebuyer is at significant risk of not making payments and of defaulting on the mortgage at some time in the near future. In the originating lenders' rush to collect the inflated fees and points that were producing huge profits for themselves, lenders often overlooked or failed to verify creditworthiness, employment status, citizenship, or ability to repay the loan.<br />
<br />
Since originating lenders quickly bundle and sell the mortgages they write to Fannie, Freddie, other large financial institutions, and Wall Street firms like Goldman-Sachs, what should they care if the homebuyer should default some time in the future? The originating lender has made its profits by charging low-income homebuyers more to make a subprime loan than it charges for other homebuyers.<br />
<br />
While the low-income homebuyer gets hit with a huge bill from the lender for advancing the loan, these loan costs are usually hidden in the loan amount to be advanced and taken off the top by the lender, so the homebuyer doesn't feel it until later on in the loan repayment schedule. After signing loan documents, and before the ink is dry, the originating lender immediately sells the mortgage. The subprime <i>hot potato</i> has been passed to someone else, who will pass it along to again another or multiple other investors (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorganChase, and Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs).<br />
<br />
Subprime homebuyers take another hit when the loan terms are written. Typically, an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is set up providing for an initial low monthly, low interest, interest-only house payment. Then over the subsequent 3-5 years, the homeowner sees his interest rate increase and also begins paying back principle along with the interest payments which often doubles or triples the initial monthly payment to a level that the homeowner had not anticipated, a level of payment that the homeowner cannot sustain for long without exhausting all resources. Many of these subprime loans have a large <i>balloon</i> payment due at 3-5 years. Also, virtually all subprime borrowers are required to purchase mortgage insurance which adds a significant sum to the monthly payment.<br />
<br />
The lender predicts while making subprime loans that the homebuyers are likely to default within the first 3-5 years. Even if the originating bank holds the subprime mortgage it makes, the bank makes money from making the loan, collects monthly payments for the duration of home ownership, and forecloses on and takes possession of the home for resale when homeowners default. As long as home values continued to rise, if the bank had to foreclose on the home, the bank stands to make a profit on this too. In addition, since all subprime mortages require mortgage insurance, if the homeowner defaults, the bank can turn to the mortgage insurance company (AIG ring any bells?) to pay off the defaulted mortgage.<br />
<br />
Many subprime lenders utilize <i>predatory</i> loan practices that benefit the lender at the expense of the homebuyer. Such as lending to low-income, would-be homebuyers, where the lender knows in advance there is high risk of default, higher loan costs are charged the homebuyer but hidden in the loan amount, ARMs are set up as described above where over several years a reasonable payment becomes two to three times it's original amount, there may be an unrealistic balloon payment required, and the cost of mortgage insurance is added to the monthly payment.<br />
<br />
If not too many homeowners default on their mortgages at once, this is not an unmanageable or unprofitable situation for banks. So, while lenders making subprime mortgages clearly reap huge profits from these predatory practices, the low-income homebuyer takes another hit with foreclosure, eviction, and financial and psychosocial-emotional loss. Rather than being a benefit to low-income families, hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages have defaulted and are in foreclosure; many more such loans are due to default over the next several years. Massive subprime mortgage defaults resulting in collapse of the housing, financial and insurance markets, and the ensuing Great Recession has brought about untold misery for these families and for most Americans.<br />
<br />
The fact that most mortgages are federally guaranteed (using taxpayer money), explicitly or implicitly, encourages the financial sector to consider these high-risk, subprime mortgage bundles and the Wall Street securities and derivatives based on them as low-risk investments. <br />
<br />
The government mortgage guarantee converted a known high-risk investment into a low-risk one, being secured by mortgage insurance companies and also by the good faith and credit of the United States. These mortgages were securitized and sold by Wall Street as prime investments, not based on the usual anticipated high homeowner debt repayment level, but based solely on the insured value and the government mortgage guarantee.<br />
<br />
When millions of these homeowners began to default on their subprime mortgages as predicted, a glut of troubled or foreclosed upon homes on the market produced a fall in home values, making most American homeowners upside-down in their mortgages (the mortgage balance owed is greater than the current appraised home value). Securitized subprime mortgages were leveraged as derivatives at 100:1 and greater, and when the housing market collapsed and mortgages were defaulted, the value of the derivatives evaporated as well leaving the Wall Street investment banks owing 100:1 on their products which now no one was buying.<br />
<br />
In 2006, the Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie, Freddie and the other mortgage banks and halt any new subprime mortgages with government guarantees to people who could not afford them. Democrats in Congress resisted all efforts to provide judicious oversight or regulation of this high-risk activity. As late as 2008, Democrat leadership in Congress assured the American public that Fannie, Freddie, and the U.S. housing and financial markets were in good shape and as strong as ever.<br />
<br />
When the subprime mortgage housing crisis began to grow and spread, Wall Street firms and other large financial institutions filed insurance claims based on the defaulted subprime mortgages, that led to the failure and federal bailout of large insurance companies like AIG, that were insolvent and unable to satisfy claims. The financial sector next went to the federal government for the guarantee and the government gave the financial and insurance companies taxpayer money to bail them out.<br />
<br />
The bubble of subprime mortgages was contrived and executed and Wall Street and other financial company excesses were subsidized by Democrat policies that led directly to the current Recession. While the Bush administration was admittedly far from perfect, Bush is not responsible for the current recession—this blame is more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democrats.<br />
<br />
While the Bush administration did little to hold down government spending and deficits, Obama has raised spending and deficits more than twice as high as levels under Bush. Most of the Bush deficit expenditures were for a prescription drug program for seniors, and providing justifiable action for national security defense against Islamic Jihadist terrorists.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, most of the Obama expenditures have been political payback to Democrat cronies, like Wall Street, the unions, environmentalists, ACORN and other subversive groups, and increasing the size of government and the number of government employees, along with ensuring that federal employee salaries and benefits were more than twice those of comparable workers in the private sector.<br />
<br />
The fact that Bush did a limited amount of damage to America through deficit spending on widely desired and other essential, constitutional government functions, does not justify Obama’s multiplying Bush’s deficit many times over with frivolous and wasteful, pork-barrel, political payback while aggressively acting to destroy American free market capitalism, abridge American freedoms, stifle the voice of opposition and critical analysis, weaken American and allied national security defenses, increase American subservience to international interests and secure long-term power to himself and the Democrat Party.<br />
<br />
Big Labor, and high corporate taxes, both strongly supported by Democrats, have forced companies to leave the United States and take their businesses elsewhere to remain competitive. If we could have stopped the unions in the 1980’s, and maintained a more reasonable business and investment tax policy we might still have a private auto industry, other manufacturing, and a stronger business sector with higher employment in our economy. Even now, we have the opportunity to dramatically reduce corporate and investment taxes and see business and industry return and boom in the U.S.<br />
<br />
However, in order to hire employees, expand the business and increase production, business needs capital. Despite a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, money is still <i>tight</i>. The banks still are not lending to the economy what the economy needs to grow. When the banks get back into the business of providing the needed capital to the economy instead of just investing overcautiously in Treasury Bills, the economy will have a chance to start growing again.<br />
<br />
In the United States we don’t have a typical parliamentary system, but we do have a fairly strong two party system. Many times in the past, third parties have been formed, and while they may temporarily sway American thought and the direction of the two major parties, none have been successful in being any real, long-term influence on American politics. The plan of the Tea Party from the start was to take over, from the inside, the Republican Party, taking it from the establishment which had lost its way and return the party to its roots in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes and free markets within the framework and freedoms of a Constitutional Republic. The Tea Party did not want and refused to go down that pointless, third-party road.<br />
<br />
Large numbers of individual, average Americans, most for the first time in their lives, moved beyond their comfort level, took a stand against the fiscally irresponsible policies of both major political parties, and worked long and hard hours to get good people with Tea Party views to win in the Republican primaries. Many progressive incumbent Republicans were replaced in these primaries with a Tea Party-supported Republican candidate. In the general elections, many progressive Democrats and earmark and spend establishment Republicans were roundly defeated and replaced with Tea Party Republicans committed to sound fiscal policies.<br />
<br />
Over time, the goal is to replace progressives of all party affiliations with Tea Party Republicans such that the Republican Party will be the party of Tea Party principles and values, and the majority party in federal, state and local government. The “Tea Party” is not an actual political party, but a loose organization of Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Unaffiliated and even some Democrats fed up with politics as usual forming thousands of small patriot groups that together make up a rather disjointed but broad-based and committed, grass-roots political movement.<br />
<br />
There is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in being a Tea Party Republican. Rather than serve to prop up the corrupt Republican or Democrat establishment in Washington, Tea Party Republicans have been charged with the special mission of restoring the Republican Party and the nation to correct, constitutional principles of government that promote freedom and prosperity.<br />
<br />
There is less than zero basis for any type of legal or ethical challenge to these newly elected lawmakers for not being “real” Republicans. The Tea Party movement believes that real Republicans ascribe to Tea Party principles and values, and that establishment Republicans have strayed far too long from their true conservative roots. The Tea Party movement may, in fact, be a part of another “Great Awakening” spreading across America and even well beyond her shores, presenting the possibly of a second chance for other great nations as well.<br />
<br />
With an influx of Tea Party Republicans into governments across the land and a Republican majority in the House, slowing down if not actually stopping altogether and reversing the relentless and destructive Obama socialist/anti-colonialist juggernaut is a real possibility. If the average American continues to stand against what is wrong with America, and fights for what is right for America, in the next several election cycles there will be Tea Party Republicans in power across the country, in the House, the Senate and in the Oval Office.<br />
<br />
If the millions of Americans who relate to the Tea Party movement continue to stand up for the God-given, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, corruption and destruction will fail, freedom will prevail, and America will be back on the road to honest industry and real, non-bubble prosperity, building a better life for our children and grandchildren, instead of selling them into future slavery to foreign powers.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-64958900344875357762010-11-14T05:30:00.003-07:002010-11-14T05:34:51.654-07:00Earmarks are a perversion of the normal congressional funding processFunding of government activities begins with the passage of an appropriations bill specifying the gross sums of money that will be spent during the fiscal year. The executive branch proposes to Congress exactly how the allocated money will be spent. Congress, representing the interests of the people, then holds hearings, writes, debates and votes on bills funding specific projects or programs, or agreeing to the President’s proposed expenditures. Spending bills passed in both chambers of Congress then go to the President’s desk for signature or veto.<br />
<br />
Where contracts are to be made with private companies to perform any such funded project, the contract is properly put to competitive bid, and the bid with the highest cost-to-benefit value wins the contract. This process is wholly transparent, is subject to public scrutiny and serves to involve rank-and-file congressional members in the process of deciding how much will be spent on which projects.<br />
<br />
Earmarks (Em) are a perversion of the constitutional provisions for funding government. Earmarks are requests by individual congresspersons to congressional leadership that portions of the year’s total appropriated money be directed to specific entities for specific projects, bypassing the open bidding process. While the constitutional appropriations process is based on merit and cost-benefit value, Em are not merit-based, but based on seniority, state or locality, congressional district, committee assignments, party power, political connections, and perceived need for reelection campaign support <br />
<br />
These earmark requests are often funding projects, companies, universities, organizations and individuals that are located in the congressperson’s district (bringing home the bacon), or benefit those that provide generous campaign contributions for the congressperson’s reelection and preservation in office, whether or not these entities are located in the particular district.<br />
<br />
Proponents of congressional earmarks argue that it is the only way for Congress to specify how the allocated dollars will be spent each year, that earmarks allow Congress to fund local projects and industry, providing jobs in their districts, and that earmarks only provide for congressional dollar allocation while not increasing total spending levels.<br />
<br />
Ems are made anonymously without public hearing, transparency or accountability, are granted by congressional leadership on a seniority/majority/party/political connections basis, are placed inside other bills at the discretion of the leadership, are not vetted, debated or voted on for their merits, and the congressperson who submits the earmark request is obligated to vote for whatever bill the leadership attaches the Em to, even if that bill entails bloated budgets or wasteful spending. In this manner, congressional leadership, controlling the very structure of Congress and every step in the process of passing bills, exerts an undue dominant influence on what Congress does each year. This Em interplay between leadership and rank-and-file members, serves to continually raise levels of government spending.<br />
<br />
As explained above, the Constitution provides an open process for funding government activities including specific projects or programs desired by Congress; the Em process is not required for Congress to exercise its prerogative of designating how taxpayer funds will be spent. In the self-serving rush to assure each congressperson’s share of the federal pie, and to assure that the executive branch doesn’t get to spend all the money by itself, the option of not spending all the appropriated, hard-earned taxpayer money is rarely considered.<br />
<br />
Ems to fund projects in the congressperson’s district (to garner local support for reelection) or to specific entities in exchange for campaign contributions are a corrupt mechanism to promote an individual congressperson’s interests over the interests of the American people. Bypassing the open bid process leads to government paying more than the actual value and getting lesser quality of the service or product provided, and fosters corruption behind closed doors.<br />
<br />
The fact that earmarks are granted by congressional leadership at their discretion allows leadership to carry out their top-down agenda and control rank-and-file members, often at odds with fiscal responsibility and the goals of the people and their representatives. Leadership, seeking support for unpopular legislation, will insert many Ems into such a bill, guaranteeing the votes of those who requested the Ems, even where the individual representative may be opposed to the bill in question because of its excessive spending or other significant objections.<br />
<br />
Government agencies estimate the direct cost of Ems at less than 2% of federal spending, and many have suggested that due to the relatively small amount of money spent on Ems, the practice should not be condemned. However, indirect and hidden costs are considerably greater and are truly significant. When major appropriations bills go through Congress, lawmakers pad each bill with excess dollars in anticipation of taking Ems further on down the line. Data showing a direct correlation between the annual costs of Ems with total annual federal spending suggests that the practice of earmarking contributes significantly to excessive government spending.<br />
<br />
Many Ems are simply add-on expenses to bills that, without question, directly increase total spending. In other instances, involving only redirection of previously appropriated funds, projects unvetted for merit are funded by defunding other programs that had been justified on a merit basis. With the Em redirection of funding away from merit-based programs, a greater portion of taxpayer dollars is spent on non-meritorious and often frivolous and wasteful projects.<br />
<br />
Many Ems are not even included in a bill, but in the conference reports on the bill. In this case, the Ems are given the full effect of U.S. law, despite the fact that they are not an actual part of the bill that was given public hearing, debated and voted on by Congress, and signed into law by the President. A convincing argument can be made that such Ems are illegal and unconstitutional and should be publically declared as such.<br />
<br />
The entire system of congressional rules and structure greatly favors leadership agendas, which are often contrary to fiscal discipline and the best interests of the American people. Eliminating Ems would greatly diminish leadership power and influence; a bitter battle is likely to ensue with Washington powerbrokers desperately resisting any reduction in their influence and power despite this being a necessary component of government reform to further the interests of the American people.<br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation and others have called for complete elimination of Ems and total reform of the majority/seniority system congressional rules and structure with the goal of real power-sharing with rank-and-file members, full disclosure of interested party/lobbyist/lawmaker relationships, and full reporting of campaign or favored cause support by those making and receiving contributions.<br />
<br />
Other sound proposals for government reform include the institution of term limits, moving congressional members and their retirement funds into Social Security, moving congressional members from congressional health plans to those that are available to the public, eliminating members voting on their own salary increases, and assuring that lawmakers are subject to every law they pass. The prime motivating factor for lawmakers must be the best interests of their constituents and the American people, not what’s best for self or party.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-34047758206636193002010-10-23T18:26:00.000-06:002010-10-23T18:26:50.161-06:00Kiss Your Social Security GoodbyeUnfortunately, you can kiss your Social Security goodbye from the day it started, and the victims of this scandal are the American people. When FDR hatched the scheme of having workers contribute a portion of their income to the Social Security Trust, it was with the promise that those who contributed to the “insurance” program would receive benefits from that Trust upon retirement.<br />
<br />
In reality, the money taken from your paycheck is not insurance and does not go to the Trust Fund, it goes to the general fund and Congress spends your contributions each year.<br />
<br />
Your hard-earned money that you contributed to the Trust Fund has been spent from day one of the program and there is NO money in the Fund today. Currently, more money is paid out to Social Security beneficiaries than comes in in contributions, and this will only worsen as the baby-boomers retire <i>en mass</i> and leave only a relatively few workers left contributing.<br />
<br />
What this means is that we have to borrow more and more money each year to continue paying benefits at the current level for more and more people; this is UNSUSTAINABLE, we can’t continue on this path for long. <br />
<br />
If the Social Security contributions, from the beginning, had been placed in a true retirement account in low-risk investments in the market, there would be billions of dollars in the Fund, even after the 2008 market decline. Instead, Congress has consistently robbed the Fund and there is ZERO dollars in the account.<br />
<br />
If we continue on the current path, there will be no Fund in a few years, and no further benefits will be paid out to anyone. So, with your choice being NO Social Security versus reforming Social Security, which would you prefer? How can we preserve something from Social Security?<br />
<br />
We have to make choices that are neither fair nor easy, and this involves the consideration of private accounts, increasing the retirement age, increasing payroll contributions, decreasing benefits, and limiting benefits to wealthy retirees who don't need them.<br />
<br />
Academic elites resist true reform and criticize current proposals as “pretty drastic” and “horse manure”; they’re right about drastic, and drastic reform is all that will save any vestige of this program. We can’t afford to continue to “kick this issue down the road” anymore as Congress has for the last 20 years.<br />
<br />
As far as whether or not Social Security is constitutional, this is a moot point. The fact that a Supreme Court packed with FDR yes-men said that Social Security was constitutional is more a reflection of political corruption than jurisprudence. The fact is, it’s a crime perpetrated on the American people by the federal government over the last some eighty years, and this has to stop. <br />
<br />
Given the history of the U.S. Congress’ abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund, if there were a choice, would you choose to trust Washington, your state government, or a private, personal investment account that you hold and will grow your retirement money and actually have something for retirement?<br />
<br />
My preference would be to have a private account in my name that I possess and have inheritance rights to that the government cannot confiscate and spend that will BE THERE when I retire. One way or the other, we’re going to have to do something dramatically different from what we’ve done in the past, if we want Social Security to exist in the future.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-45987654396417612732010-10-20T19:54:00.000-06:002010-10-20T19:54:16.227-06:00Connor Boyack Questions Utah Candidates for U.S. SenateIn August of this year, Connor Boyack, previously with the Mike Lee for Senate campaign and currently a Scott Bradley supporter, submitted eight questions to the Constitution Party, Democrat Party, and Republican Party candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah, asking their positions on a number of issues. Only the Constitution Party candidate, Scott Bradley, elected to respond to this questionnaire, and his rather lengthy response was published on <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/eight-questions-three-candidates-one-response">Boyack’s blog site</a>. I have chosen to respond to Boyack’s questions, listed below, from Mike Lee’s perspective.<br />
<br />
1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?<br />
<br />
2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?<br />
<br />
3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?<br />
<br />
4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?<br />
<br />
5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?<br />
<br />
6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?<br />
<br />
7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?<br />
<br />
8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?<br />
<br />
Several of Connor’s questions are already addressed on <a href="http://www.mikelee2010.com/">Mike Lee’s website</a>, although perhaps not in the detail that political aficionados would like. Mike addresses the issue of the current war on terror as manifested by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his views do not differ greatly from those of Mr. Bradley.<br />
<br />
Mike has also clearly expressed his position on illegal immigration: secure the borders, no amnesty, no more anchor babies (via <a href="http://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2010/09/amnesty-is-for-dummies.html">original intent of 14th Amendment</a> clarified by legislation as Mr. Bradley explains), no healthcare/welfare benefits for illegals, and enforce current law including preventing employers from hiring illegal workers so they will pack up and go home.<br />
<br />
Mike Lee is also in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and has expressed his view on his website that members of both chambers of congress should not become career politicians, but serve no more than 12 years.<br />
<br />
Mike has also outlined his views on fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strengthening national security, preservation of freedoms and tax reform. Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar undeniably committed to returning to constitutionally limited federal government.<br />
<br />
As for the other questions, they concern controversial issues where simple answers are insufficient with a public that is unschooled and uninformed regarding current libertarian issues and thought such as the role of the Federal Reserve.<br />
<br />
Without such a foundation for discussion, a candidate’s well-reasoned position in these areas will be easily misunderstood and motives misconstrued. However, there is no doubt that Mike Lee will adhere to the Constitution on all issues.<br />
<br />
The comments here predominantly commend Mr. Bradley for his straightforward response to each of the questions. His responses are detailed and lengthy and are evidence that Mr. Bradley dedicated significant energy and effort to this work. I was personally disappointed, however, that he deftly side-stepped some of the major concerns regarding these issues.<br />
<br />
Mr. Bradley’s proscription against war is well taken, however, when we are attacked by an enemy we have the right and the obligation to defend ourselves. It is undeniable that Congress has the power to declare war and the executive branch has the power to wage war. Abuses of executive power must certainly be stopped. And the United States should not have a mission of nation building.<br />
<br />
The difficulty is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was willingly hijacked by al-Qaeda and served as a base of operations for attacks on the West. Even now, if we were to abruptly pull out, the Taliban/al-Qaeda insurgency will return to dominate and abuse Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks. Without some “nation building” assistance, how will the Afghan government ever become strong enough to resist on their own a Taliban/al-Qaeda takeover?<br />
<br />
After further terrorist attacks we would have to return to Afghanistan again to finish the job we justifiably started after 9/11. In the interests of our very real national security needs and a mission to eliminate the root of terrorism that threatens our land, we cannot afford to go down this road. I would like to know how Mr. Bradley would address this part of the issue.<br />
<br />
As far as illegal immigration, as others here have pointed out, Mr. Bradley deals with the constitutionally designated federal control of naturalization, but fails to mention that the Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over immigration, which is a separate issue.<br />
<br />
In such cases, the power to control immigration is constitutionally relegated to the states or to the people. While state control of immigration may be difficult and impractical, if we are to adhere to the founder’s intent of the Constitution, that’s the way it is.<br />
<br />
Also, Mr. Bradley says that we should enforce immigration laws and then penalize any illegal caught after a grace period who has not submitted to forced self-deportation. In the past, enforcing immigration laws has meant in practice primarily detecting and deporting illegal workers.<br />
<br />
Mike Lee believes that by enforcing laws that prevent employers from hiring illegal workers, jobs for illegals will dry up and they will pack up and go home without any coercion. Where does Mr. Bradley stand on employer enforcement?Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-86180890680220903042010-10-15T02:12:00.001-06:002010-10-15T02:13:02.791-06:00Nixon's Blood Cries From the Grave for Obama's ResignationNixon resigned the Presidency largely because of Administration "enemies lists", slush funds to finance "dirty tricks" to influence voters, and the cover-up after the fact of these activities authorized by the President. Illegal Nixon Administration activities, like the Watergate break-in, are now known to have occurred without the President’s knowledge or approval.<br />
<br />
President Clinton was impeached by the House essentially for lying to the American people, and remains indebted to the Senate for having the mercy not to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. What Obama is doing is little different from what Clinton and the Nixon Administration did that led to Clinton’s impeachment and Nixon’s forced resignation. Except that Obama is better organized, better funded, better connected, has the full support of the lapdog, lame-stream media, and is much more dangerous.<br />
<br />
President Obama, as a candidate for the presidency, flagrantly violated campaign financing laws in raising the record number of millions of dollars to finance his campaign. As president, Obama encouraged and sanctioned the thuggish activities of ACORN and SEIU, and his stimulus bill sent millions of dollars to these groups for their illegal activities. President Obama has blatantly lied to the American public on many occasions such as when trying to sell Obamacare, the new financial law and the DISCLOSE Act to the people.<br />
<br />
Obama’s Justice Department has failed to prosecute criminals intimidating voters or assaulting Tea Party members, investigate serious voting irregularities across the nation, or defend in the courts the Defense of Marriage Act. Supreme Court Justices have been appointed that lack a healthy respect for the Constitution and refuse to abide by the oath of office that requires Justices to render equal judgment without regard to race, status or condition of wealth.<br />
<br />
Virtually daily Obama initiatives are slotted to repress personal freedoms from silencing the free speech of those who oppose his agenda, to registration, limitation and confiscation of personal firearms, and even to outlawing sweetened drinks at schools or the addition of salt to our food.<br />
<br />
Where Arizona passed a law to permit state law-enforcement to help do the job of enforcing laws governing illegal immigrants that the federal government refused to do, the DOJ sued the State of Arizona to stop the state from upholding the law.<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration actively promotes illegal immigration, wants to secure health and welfare benefits for illegals, encourages illegals to vote in U.S. elections thereby violating voting-rights laws, and wants to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently working in the country that would lead to assuring the Democrats’ grip on power for many years to come.<br />
<br />
Many scabs are being hired by the Left to infiltrate Tea Party and 9/12 Project groups and stir things up, creating controversy and behaving badly to attract negative attention, to divide, discredit and incapacitate our grassroots efforts. In a number of locations around the country, the Left has also fielded and funded candidates to run with the Tea Party name on the ballot, to confuse voters, split the conservative vote, and give the elections to Democrats.<br />
<br />
In the early 1970’s, there was such a public outcry against President Nixon for being involved in half the offensive activities that President Obama is today involved in, that Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. When George W. Bush was running for president, the public had to see his school transcripts and check his attendance records with the National Guard.<br />
<br />
However, Obama has a team of high-powered lawyers criss-crossing the nation daily at taxpayer expense to fight in court the legitimate demand that official records of his stateside hospital birth and school records be released, records that would reflect on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be the U.S. President. <br />
<br />
Are there no longer any waves of shock and shame that our President would stoop or bow to these depths? Does it even matter today that our President is a liar and "...a crook"?<br />
<br />
Is former President Clinton secretly frustrated that he was impeached for lying about mere sexual indiscretion while Obama’s many flagrant lies about serious issues that affect the lives of every American go with little public criticism and remain unpunished? While Obama strives for social justice and income redistribution, does the blood of Nixon cry out from the grave demanding of Obama “equal justice”?<br />
<br />
And what about all the taxpayer money Obama gives to cronies to promote Obamacare, the financial law, the proposed cap and tax scheme, the Obama Presidency and agenda? And all the taxpayer money spent on criticizing and denigrating the Tea Party movement? Is there no longer any respect for the voice of the people?<br />
<br />
Why is my hard-earned money being spent by the government to try and convince me that what I'm diametrically opposed to, is something I really should support? Save my money, it’s not working. And why is my money being spent to neutralize a grass-roots movement of which I’m a part and that is the only hope for preserving our free country?<br />
<br />
Is there no longer any respect for property, a right constitutionally guaranteed? Is there no longer any respect for the rule of law where citizens and leaders and black and white alike are held to the same standard of compliance? If we are not a free nation of laws, based on inalienable rights granted man by his Creator and secured by the founding law of the Constitution, then we are no longer a free nation.<br />
<br />
If we are no longer a free nation, then we must all join the fight to restore our freedom and a respect for our Constitution and all the other laws that proceed from a constitutional basis. Along with this secular renewal, we must also recommit ourselves to a respect for the laws of our Creator and seek to develop a spiritually-centered individual life and public culture.<br />
<br />
When asked by a spectator of the Constitutional Convention what they had made, Benjamin Franklin answered “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Franklin predicted correctly that without continual vigilance, it would be difficult to preserve our free society in the face of constant and unrelenting assault on our Constitutional Republic from sources both foreign and domestic.<br />
<br />
The American people have turned their eyes to heaven to repent from having elected President Obama and given him a Democrat majority in Congress, which, combined have worked to destroy all that makes us a great country, including our spiritually-centered culture of doing that which is right and morally responsible. The full measure of our penitence will be required at the ballot box.<br />
<br />
Once we have secured honorable people with strong moral and conservative ideals to high office, we must continue to be vigilant to help our leaders continue to walk the straight and narrow path to which they are committed.<br />
<br />
If we persist in this struggle with the far-Left radical extremists that currently are running this great country into the ground, and we continue to win new support on a constant basis, eventually we will succeed in restoring liberty and the rule of law, limited by the Constitution according to the founding fathers’ design which was guided and led by the Creator in the sacred work of founding this great free nation.<br />
<br />
Today we would answer Benjamin Franklin’s statement as he left the Constitutional Convention that day, in saying “By the Grace of God we will fight to keep our Constitutional Republic and our freedoms.”Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864742244091761825.post-10346650337468773012010-10-14T00:45:00.001-06:002010-10-14T00:46:50.703-06:00Controversy Over Ground Zero Mosque Gives America "Black Eye"News outlets in the Muslim world have reported on the controversy surrounding the plan to build a mosque and Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York, expressing Muslim sentiment that this would give America a “black eye” for its intolerance.<br />
<br />
In these recent reports, a Cairo housewife questioned the purported reasons for this American resistance and was quoted as saying “It's not that important for Islam to have a mosque at Ground Zero”. If Islam is truly disinterested in the precise location, why not build this center elsewhere?<br />
<br />
If it was just about freedom of religion and building a place of worship, why have the developers refused to even discuss any other location, even one provided at public expense? If it was really about building understanding, cooperation and good will between different faiths, the Ground Zero location would never have been seriously considered.<br />
<br />
The Ground Zero site selection was no coincidence. It was chosen precisely because of its symbolism of Muslim conquest over the U.S. Cordoba, Spain, was the historic center of Muslim conquest of Southern Europe where a Christian cathedral was torn down and a grand mosque built in its place to commemorate the victory over Christians.<br />
<br />
The Ground Zero site was chosen in order that the U.S. might be symbolically denigrated by the traditional Muslim insult of victorious Muslim feet treading on "the bones and ashes" of the murdered 9/11 victims. This is the site where the landing gear of the plane piloted by Mohammed Atta, which slammed into the World Trade Center, fell through the roof of the Burlington Coat Factory Building. This is the site of the Islamic Center “Cordoba House”.<br />
<br />
Muslims are encouraged to lie to infidels (all non-Muslims) if it furthers Islam. What better cause to lie about to the West, then building a celebratory mosque at Ground Zero which would serve as a center for indoctrination, training, command and control for jihad and the forcible imposition of Shariah Law on America.<br />
<br />
Islam understands that the freedom we enjoy in America also makes us vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by those who have as their ultimate goal the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and the forced, total subjugation of the American people. The very word Islam means “submission”.<br />
<br />
America and the West have been viciously attacked by Islamic Extremists over at least three decades. At the same time, we supported the Afghan mujahedin in their fight with the Soviets, we fought to remove Saddam Hussein's armies from Kuwait after his ruthless invasion of a sister Muslim country, we fought for Muslims in Bosnia, we freed Afghanistan and Iraq of brutal totalitarianism and are still fighting in Afghanistan to defend the Afghan people and give them a chance at freedom.<br />
<br />
Because of all America has done for them, we should apologize to Muslim nations and do whatever we can to return to their good graces?<br />
<br />
In a country where religious freedom abounds, Muslims, notorious for their intolerance of other faiths, may take advantage of this freedom in claiming the right to build a mosque wherever they please, despite the sentiments of those who perished and those who survived the horror of 9/11.<br />
<br />
If it gives America a black eye because we refuse to be rolled over by these Islamic Extremists, then I say, let us have two black eyes.Bruce Ogdenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384887476236349960noreply@blogger.com0