Utah Voting Recommendations for 2018 (Recommended*)

U.S.Senate

Tim Aalders* is a Republican running on the Constitution Party ticket. He is a conservative committed to the Constitution.

        Please don’t vote Democrat 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.

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.

Mitt Romney 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.

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.

U.S. House District 3
John Curtis is the Republican nominee for U.S. Representative. He cannot be recommended.

        Gregory C. Duerden is the Independent American Party candidate for U.S. Representative. 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.

Utah State Senate District 15

        Keith Grover* is the Republican nominee for State Senate.

Utah State House District 61

        Marsha Judkins* is the Republican nominee for State House of Representatives.

Utah County Commission Seat B
Bill Lee* is the Republican running for County Commissioner

Utah County Attorney
David O. Leavitt* is the Republican running for Utah County Attorney.

Utah County Clerk/Auditor

         Jason Christensen is the Independent American Party candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.

        Amelia Powers* is the Republican candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.

Constitutional Amendment A: 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.

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. Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment A.

Constitutional Amendment B: would authorize a property tax exemption to the property’s private owner for land or buildings leased to state or local governments.

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.

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.

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.

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. Recommendation: Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment B.

Constitutional Amendment C: 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.

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.

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.

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. Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment C.

The Issue of Fiscal Responsibility (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).

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

One perk that seems to inspire so many of these leaders today is the natural outcome of a great political truth: “The more taxpayers’ dollars you are in charge of spending, the greater your political power and the greater your opportunity for enrichment.” 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.

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.

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.

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. Recommendation: Mitt Romney cannot be recommended without reservation.

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.

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.

           

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 “fixing potholes, etc.” 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Lt. Governor Spencer Cox 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.

In return for allowing CC to do damage to our children, our fearless leaders got a few worthless beans 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). 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.

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 “Nonbinding Opinion Question #1” which is political-speak for “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.”

The stated purpose of this tax is “To provide additional funding for public education and local roads.” 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.

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. Recommendation: Vote NO on Nonbinding Opinion Question #1.

Prop 2 – Establishing a State Program for Medical Marijuana. 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.

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. Recommendations: Prayerfully vote your conscience, based on your sound, fixed principles and values.

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.

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.

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. Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 3 “Medicaid Expansion.”

Prop 4 – Gerrymandering - Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair and Unbiased While Providing No Partisan Advantage. 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”.

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.

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.

Further information on Prop 4 
https://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2018/10/utah-prop-4-is-disaster.html

Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 4 – Failed Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair & Unbiased Without Providing Any Partisan Advantage.

Official Ballot for Provo City, Utah Special Bond Election – Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

How to End Illegal Immigration

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.

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).

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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?” 

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. 

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.

Remove Incentives and They Won’t Come -

– There is No Other Non-Violent Way to Stop Illegal Immigration

1.      No More Insecure Border – Build the Wall, Harden the Target.

2.      No Amnesty (or even talk of amnesty which encourages more to come illegally).

3.      No More Catch & Release; No More Applicants for Asylum at the Border, No More Slacking on Current Immigration Law Enforcement.

4.      No Jobs for Illegals; Strict E-Verify, stiff punishment for those that hire illegals and swift deportation for illegals.

5.      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.

6.      No More Drivers’ Licenses or ID Cards for Illegals; And No Illegal Immigrant Votes.

7.      No More Anchor Babies.

8.      No More Lottery or Chain Migration.

9.      No Official Language but English. No More Pressing the Number “1” for English.

10.   No Separating the Families of Illegal Immigrants – All Go Home Together.

11.   No Sanctuary Cities, States or Sanctuary Anything.

Utah Prop 4 is a Disaster!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just Another Brick in the Wall

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

Lies & Pecadillos: What’s Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story – Part Two 

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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. 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.

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.

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.

 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. 

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.