Saturday, April 17, 2010
AND IT IS AMONG THREE.....
Has been a whirl wind week listening to the candidates in casual settings and getting to know them better. Finally got to hear Cherilyn Eager...this women knows her postions, hasn't faltered in 30 years, has great passion for protecting our children and grandchildren, understands the sad position we're in concerning health care, and is basically another all round good candidate. In fact, the hard part is all three front runners to Sen. Bennett: Bridgewater, Eager, and Lee are really good candidates with each bringing something to the table, and all bring the passion of wanting to really make a difference in D.C. But the question now is who will really be able to do it? Who will be able to rally the newbies to stick to the Constitution? Who will be able to take that small group and have it grow with others in the Senate who need the courage to follow the Constitution so that the group is large enough in D.C. to make a difference? Who is honest enough to tell the voters how long it's going to take to turn this mess around? Who will have the stamina to not give up? Who will the other Senators respect due to knowledge and knowing what the Constitution says... and listen, really listen to our Senator? Who will stay in touch with the voters? Who will still make Utah their home and not Washington, D.C.? These are the questions that keep going through my mind, and my choice to represent the residents of Coral Canyon, who elected me to be their delegate, is beginning to come into focus. I'm not set yet, but I am, taking all things into account, leaning in one direction as to whom, I feel, can fulfill the answer to the above questions. You know, the Bible is such a wonderful Policy and Procedure manual. There are many stories about the Jews and how they would "get it", and then forget it, and have to start over. Moses was their leader for 40 years basically guiding them around the same mountain. It has taken 80 years since this mess began with laws being passed that were not Constitutional. I believe we don't have anymore time to waste taking another walk around the mountain. We must elect new blood, folks we can hold accountable, and folks who know how to turn this thing around. As it is it might take another 40 years, but if we don't begin now, we will stay in the wilderness forever. I am looking for the candidate who can bring us out of the wilderness...a leader. I'm closer to who I believe will be able to do that...still open, but very close. So in the meantime, please pray for our community, state, and our nation. We need God's grace to get us through this mess. Until next time...May God Bless America!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
PHONE CALLS COMING OUT MY EARS!
As usual I'm writing this in a hurried fashion, hence grammar, spelling, etc might suffer. Please don't hold that against me. It is amazing how many phone calls I've been receiving from several of the candidates...some for town meetings, some conducting surveys, some from "big boy supporters" encouraging me to vote for "their" guy. It's amazing! But if I'm taking a poll Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee are outdoing all of them with contacts. This next week I'll go into more meetings by phone or in person with Eagar whom I'm really looking forward to hearing from...this will be the first time. And another face to face with Mike Lee. Plus I'm sure there will be more phone calls. Based on the number of contacts from Lee and Bridgewater, they really want the opportunity for Bennett's seat. I'm sure all of the candidates want it...not saying that, but actions speak louder than words and these two guys are pulling out all the stops. I will write an update after each experience. Oh yes, in a Senate candidate I'm looking for someone with knowledge, stamina, and relentlessness in fighting for appropriate health care solutions, fiscal responsibility to pay down the debt, an alternative to VAT, protecting our borders, an alternative to cap and trade, and getting back to the Constitution regarding state's rights. Until next time...pay attention, get involved, make a difference...Bob
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Are We Picking and Choosing What We .ike in the Contitution
All of the candidates are on the "I am for the Constitution" band wagon. They are that way because we are that way! Gun control, health care, state's righta all are boiling to the top of of the leader boards for issues we are concerned with. Yet all these candidates take the position that they are for staying the course in Iraq and Afganastan. But are we fighting an unconstitutional war?
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.
Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.
Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.
In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.
The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.
The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.
Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
But today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. Congrees allowed the president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world, creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.
Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.
In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Virginia) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."
The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.
It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.
I am not anti-war and spent 22 years in the U.S submarine service defending my country. If we want to go to war then lets do it the right way with a Declaration of War from Congress. We can't subscribe to parts of the Constitution and reject others.
Bob Sands
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.
Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.
Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.
In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.
The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.
The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.
Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
But today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. Congrees allowed the president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world, creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.
Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.
In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Virginia) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."
The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.
It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.
I am not anti-war and spent 22 years in the U.S submarine service defending my country. If we want to go to war then lets do it the right way with a Declaration of War from Congress. We can't subscribe to parts of the Constitution and reject others.
Bob Sands
Monday, April 5, 2010
PIZZA WITH NEIL WALTER
Today I had the pleasure of meeting with Neil Walter who is running for Utah 2nd Congressional District. There were about 30 delegates in attendance, and they fired questions at him like there was no tomorrow. Certainly he demonstrated he is qualified to represent Southern Utah in the answers he gave understanding of where most of the delegates were coming from. Let me share why.
His family has roots that go back to the settling of St. George, Santa Clara, and the Hurricane Valley. He was born in St. George to parents who were raised here. He received an associates degree from Dixie State College, and graduated with a degree in Finance from Brigham Young University.
He stayed in Utah Valley and worked for two years after graduation, and then moved to Pittsburgh to attend graduate school at Carnegie Mellon University where he earned his MBA (an MBA from Carnegie Mellon is impressive).
He moved to Houston, Texas to work for ConocoPhillips after graduation. At ConocoPhillips he worked on a team that was responsible for risk management on the natural gas and power trading floor, and later helped price natural gas and power derivatives and structured contracts. His answers on green energy showed that he's been well trained on how this will all go down if implemented in our country and state. He returned home to St. George when his father had a heart attack (he's well now) in order to help with the family business. Within a year of returning to St. George, and beginning work with his father, he started teaching at Dixie State College. During his tenure there, he has taught economics, statistics, entrepreneurial finance, and real estate finance.
He has served as treasurer of the Washington County Board of Realtors, Secretary of the BYU Management Society, Finance Chair for the Snow Canyon District of the Boy Scouts of America, President of his local Home Owners Association, a member of the Washington City Strategic Partners Advisory Group, and a Varsity Scout Assistant Coach.
Why is he running?
"The recession has been difficult for everyone. It lasted longer and was deeper than most of us expected. My students at Dixie State asked hard questions about how the recession started and how we get out. As I thought about their questions and began to look toward the future, I realized that someone with my background could be helpful in addressing the financial issues in Washington DC. We need more people with strong financial backgrounds and entrepreneurial experience.
The tipping point for me was realizing that the current leadership in Washington DC was saying they wanted economic growth and job creation but their policies were discouraging investors, businesses, and consumers. I concluded that the most significant thing I could do to help my family, my neighbors, my jobless students, and my struggling business clients was to help change the agenda in Washington DC."
Some of the things I'm looking for in a candidate is who might be the best to put our country on a solid financial footing, and move toward an innovative and dynamic economy that competes aggressively in world markets. We have all have had to reevaluate our needs and adjust our priorities because of the recent recession. It is time to put this country's house in order as well.
Neil's understanding of the responsibility of a congressperson in getting the country back to fiscal responsibility, getting back to state's rights, staying with core family values, and having a younger age as an advantage to "go get em'" was refreshing. I look forward to getting to know more about how he feels concerning more of the issues.
After Philpot texting while he as meeting with folks the other day, and being rude to say the least, I was beginning to wonder if I might vote Matheson back in. But today I found a candidate who I feel comfortable with replacing him. Of course, I still have more to meet, but at least I know there is hope.
I will tell you Neil Walter is one impressive young man!!
You can read more about him at
http://www.neilforcongress.com/
Bob Sands
His family has roots that go back to the settling of St. George, Santa Clara, and the Hurricane Valley. He was born in St. George to parents who were raised here. He received an associates degree from Dixie State College, and graduated with a degree in Finance from Brigham Young University.
He stayed in Utah Valley and worked for two years after graduation, and then moved to Pittsburgh to attend graduate school at Carnegie Mellon University where he earned his MBA (an MBA from Carnegie Mellon is impressive).
He moved to Houston, Texas to work for ConocoPhillips after graduation. At ConocoPhillips he worked on a team that was responsible for risk management on the natural gas and power trading floor, and later helped price natural gas and power derivatives and structured contracts. His answers on green energy showed that he's been well trained on how this will all go down if implemented in our country and state. He returned home to St. George when his father had a heart attack (he's well now) in order to help with the family business. Within a year of returning to St. George, and beginning work with his father, he started teaching at Dixie State College. During his tenure there, he has taught economics, statistics, entrepreneurial finance, and real estate finance.
He has served as treasurer of the Washington County Board of Realtors, Secretary of the BYU Management Society, Finance Chair for the Snow Canyon District of the Boy Scouts of America, President of his local Home Owners Association, a member of the Washington City Strategic Partners Advisory Group, and a Varsity Scout Assistant Coach.
Why is he running?
"The recession has been difficult for everyone. It lasted longer and was deeper than most of us expected. My students at Dixie State asked hard questions about how the recession started and how we get out. As I thought about their questions and began to look toward the future, I realized that someone with my background could be helpful in addressing the financial issues in Washington DC. We need more people with strong financial backgrounds and entrepreneurial experience.
The tipping point for me was realizing that the current leadership in Washington DC was saying they wanted economic growth and job creation but their policies were discouraging investors, businesses, and consumers. I concluded that the most significant thing I could do to help my family, my neighbors, my jobless students, and my struggling business clients was to help change the agenda in Washington DC."
Some of the things I'm looking for in a candidate is who might be the best to put our country on a solid financial footing, and move toward an innovative and dynamic economy that competes aggressively in world markets. We have all have had to reevaluate our needs and adjust our priorities because of the recent recession. It is time to put this country's house in order as well.
Neil's understanding of the responsibility of a congressperson in getting the country back to fiscal responsibility, getting back to state's rights, staying with core family values, and having a younger age as an advantage to "go get em'" was refreshing. I look forward to getting to know more about how he feels concerning more of the issues.
After Philpot texting while he as meeting with folks the other day, and being rude to say the least, I was beginning to wonder if I might vote Matheson back in. But today I found a candidate who I feel comfortable with replacing him. Of course, I still have more to meet, but at least I know there is hope.
I will tell you Neil Walter is one impressive young man!!
You can read more about him at
http://www.neilforcongress.com/
Bob Sands
Saturday, April 3, 2010
SEN. BENNETT, "MY POSITIONS HAVE BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED......
Good Morning! Yesterday Beverly had a question from someone who is reading this blog..."what is it, exactly, that Bob is looking for in a candidate?"...so I will answer that next time...but before we head out to the annual Art Festival I wanted to post a summary of a letter by Sen Bennett that arrived yesterday.
"Entitlement spending impacts more that the budget. Our national security is at stake. I've dedicated the majority of my time in the U.S. Senate to studying these issues to find the right kinds of solutions. Every year for the last several years, I've introduced legislation to both fix and save social security...This is why I am running for another term in the Senate...I want to be at the forefront of the fight. It is not lost on me that three terms in the U.S. Senate is a long time. I realize that there is a younger generation waiting in the wings. I did not run for the Senate until I had conculded a successful business career. I'm glad I waited, because my life experience gave me a breadth of knowledge and a depth of understanding about the real challenges facing the average citizen that many of my colleagues lack. In this fiscal year alone, I have voted in opposition to over two trillion dollars in new spending, including:
against $350 billion in additioal TARP funding
" President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
" the $408 billion FY2009 Omnibus
" the $446 billion FY2010 Omnibus
" $85 billion in auto bailouts.
Some have said that I don't believe in the Constitution. In fact, I have been a student of Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Marshall and Jefferson for my entire life...the principles are at the core of my political philosophy....I have learned to be wary of those who use the Constitution as a campaign prop, by claiming to be the sole keepers of the constitutional flame.
The issue before you and the other delegates is this: who of the individuals who have presented themselves as candidates is best prepared to serve in the tumultuous decade ahead of us, to finally begin to rein in unbridled mandated government spending?
My positions have been mischaracterized and misrepresented on any number of issues, including health care. There are differences between my opponents and me. Tim Bridgewater was a paid operative for John McCain's presidential campaign, while I was supporting Mitt Romney. Mike Lee advocates a "cut and run" policy in Afghanistan, and says we should bring home all the troops in the Middle East.
.....I also hope to visit with you in person. I recognize that it is an honor, not a right, to serve and I take my responsibilities very seriously.".
So there you have it...more info...hope you find it interesting. Now out the door with my "bride" to stroll the Art Festival.
"Entitlement spending impacts more that the budget. Our national security is at stake. I've dedicated the majority of my time in the U.S. Senate to studying these issues to find the right kinds of solutions. Every year for the last several years, I've introduced legislation to both fix and save social security...This is why I am running for another term in the Senate...I want to be at the forefront of the fight. It is not lost on me that three terms in the U.S. Senate is a long time. I realize that there is a younger generation waiting in the wings. I did not run for the Senate until I had conculded a successful business career. I'm glad I waited, because my life experience gave me a breadth of knowledge and a depth of understanding about the real challenges facing the average citizen that many of my colleagues lack. In this fiscal year alone, I have voted in opposition to over two trillion dollars in new spending, including:
against $350 billion in additioal TARP funding
" President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
" the $408 billion FY2009 Omnibus
" the $446 billion FY2010 Omnibus
" $85 billion in auto bailouts.
Some have said that I don't believe in the Constitution. In fact, I have been a student of Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Marshall and Jefferson for my entire life...the principles are at the core of my political philosophy....I have learned to be wary of those who use the Constitution as a campaign prop, by claiming to be the sole keepers of the constitutional flame.
The issue before you and the other delegates is this: who of the individuals who have presented themselves as candidates is best prepared to serve in the tumultuous decade ahead of us, to finally begin to rein in unbridled mandated government spending?
My positions have been mischaracterized and misrepresented on any number of issues, including health care. There are differences between my opponents and me. Tim Bridgewater was a paid operative for John McCain's presidential campaign, while I was supporting Mitt Romney. Mike Lee advocates a "cut and run" policy in Afghanistan, and says we should bring home all the troops in the Middle East.
.....I also hope to visit with you in person. I recognize that it is an honor, not a right, to serve and I take my responsibilities very seriously.".
So there you have it...more info...hope you find it interesting. Now out the door with my "bride" to stroll the Art Festival.
Friday, April 2, 2010
MAIL ARRIVING!!!!
Yesterday I received a letter from The Club for Growth. First time I've ever heard of this group...which "is a network of concerned citizens from all 50 states who pool their resources to influence federal policy on economic issues throught grassroots lobbying, public education campaigns and, through the Club for Growth PAC, direct action in congressional races". These were their comments on Sen. Bennett's record, voted "for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in 2008. He did indeed vote to save the Bridge to Nowhere earmark in Alaska, even after the scandal around it broke. And his health care proposal, the "The Wyden-Bennett Act", was in fact shown by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $1.3 - $1.4 trillion per year, to be financed by job-killing tax increases of $400-$500 billion, and includes an unconstitutional individual mandate to buy government-approved health insurance....we have documented every claim we make at our website, http://www.stopbobbennett.com/, so Utahns can see for themselves what Bob Bennett has been up to in Washington." SSSSSOOOOOO more research. Need to go to the website and check it out, and hope you will too. Let me know if you have any comments. In the meantime...onward and upward!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I sat in my comfortable chair under a shade tree, enjoying the Tea Party Express my mind wandered to all the different characters that made up the crowd. I think I observed 4 generations of Americans, maybe 5 if you wanted to count babies. The age group most represented was the group that had gray hair like my own.
Sprinkled among the American Flags, and the "Don't tread on me" flags were signs hawking people's issue of the day; Health Care, Illegal Aliens, Gun Control;I think you get the picture!
What did amaze me is how before the Tea Party Express arrived we had people taking the stage that should have never been on stage. Wandering rhetorics, Favorite T-shirts, and even a balding gray haired man with a spike mohawk singing the "Green Beret" song. The crowd was saved by the T-party bus pulling up, and then the party began! I found the actual T-party folks entertaining, and the program well done.
Because I am a conservative I enjoyed and felt comfortable with the crowd. But I can imagine my more liberal friends were not as comfortable. This made me think of how our media and politicians have managed to polarize us as a nation. We are no longer Americans! We are:
1. Afro Americans
2. Hispanic Americans
3. White Americans
4. Male Americans
5. Female Americans
6. Old Americans
7. Young Americans
8. American with disabilities
9. Veteran Americans
A long time ago a wise friend told me everyone is a Hypocrite. What we need to do is define our boundaries of hypocrisy so we can join with like Hypocrites to argue against Hypocrites we don't agree with. We are all products of our upbringing and our own experiences.
It is amusing that one of the issues of the day was the reduction of entitlements. This was coming from a crowd of at least 50% on Social Security and/or medicare! One has to think, "how much sacrifice would anyone of the above 9 categories be willing to make to bring back a country more in line with the constitution"? Good question. Our founding Fathers were an amazing group of people. Most of them, and their families, sacrificed wealth, abuse and long periods of separation to turn an idea into a working form of government which had never been seen before. They were, and still are, the example.
So the next time you make of your sign for your particular issue make sure, besides that you don't run out of room at the end, you are willing to define the length you are willing to go to champion that cause. Are you just bloviating or are you willing to educate yourself and take action? Another good question.
Bob
Sprinkled among the American Flags, and the "Don't tread on me" flags were signs hawking people's issue of the day; Health Care, Illegal Aliens, Gun Control;I think you get the picture!
What did amaze me is how before the Tea Party Express arrived we had people taking the stage that should have never been on stage. Wandering rhetorics, Favorite T-shirts, and even a balding gray haired man with a spike mohawk singing the "Green Beret" song. The crowd was saved by the T-party bus pulling up, and then the party began! I found the actual T-party folks entertaining, and the program well done.
Because I am a conservative I enjoyed and felt comfortable with the crowd. But I can imagine my more liberal friends were not as comfortable. This made me think of how our media and politicians have managed to polarize us as a nation. We are no longer Americans! We are:
1. Afro Americans
2. Hispanic Americans
3. White Americans
4. Male Americans
5. Female Americans
6. Old Americans
7. Young Americans
8. American with disabilities
9. Veteran Americans
A long time ago a wise friend told me everyone is a Hypocrite. What we need to do is define our boundaries of hypocrisy so we can join with like Hypocrites to argue against Hypocrites we don't agree with. We are all products of our upbringing and our own experiences.
It is amusing that one of the issues of the day was the reduction of entitlements. This was coming from a crowd of at least 50% on Social Security and/or medicare! One has to think, "how much sacrifice would anyone of the above 9 categories be willing to make to bring back a country more in line with the constitution"? Good question. Our founding Fathers were an amazing group of people. Most of them, and their families, sacrificed wealth, abuse and long periods of separation to turn an idea into a working form of government which had never been seen before. They were, and still are, the example.
So the next time you make of your sign for your particular issue make sure, besides that you don't run out of room at the end, you are willing to define the length you are willing to go to champion that cause. Are you just bloviating or are you willing to educate yourself and take action? Another good question.
Bob
Meetings with the Candidates
This last week I attended meetings that were held for Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater and Morgan Philpot(who is running for Utah's Second District). The theme of all the candidates is we need a change from the incumbancy, which should be no surprise to us since most of us are demanding change. I do, however, believe we should be careful in demanding change for change sake. Here is what I have gleaned thus far:
1. Tim Bridgewater. Certainly seems the most energetic of the candidates. Since Tuesday March 24th, a little over 2 weeks, Tim has visited 21 of the 29 counties in the state, had 30 meetings and telephone discussions with over 850 delegates. Here are a few things I have learned about him:
a. He was raise from humble beginnings by a single mom in a trailer park.
b. As a young man went to Washington DC, where he worked on Reagan's staff.
c. Was involved in working economic issues with South American countries that were in economic crisis.
d. Has been involved in many successful businesses and was responsible for bringing a Hi-Tech 400 person company to Salt Lake City.
e. Believes we should get back to the constitution.
f. Believes that the higher taxes and Federal mandates are crippling small business from growing or starting.
g. Believes in term limits including his own.
h. Beleves in an end to deficit spending.
i. Believes in a strong National Defense.
j. Solving the border problem.
When ask what the difference with he and Mike Lee was he was very complimentary of Mike, and said the difference is that Mike is a constitutional lawyer and he, Tim, is a businessman who believes in the Constitution.
2. Mike Lee
a. Mike was the son of a Constitutional Lawyer who worked for President Reagan.Mike attributes his love for the Constitution from his Dad who always discussed the Constitution around the dinner table.
b. Believes in a strong National Defense.
c. Close the borders to illegal aliens
d. Solve the National Debt crisis.
e. Pro-life.
f. Reducing Federal restrictions and increasing State rights.
g. Term Limits.
You can visit both websites of Mike and Tim:
Tim Bridgewater:
http://timbridgewater.com
Mike Lee
http://www.mikelee2010.com/
Morgan Philpot. The meeting with Morgan Philpot was less informative! He made a big deal about how Matheson's race was going to be a Republican targeted race to defeat Matheson. He emphasized his campaign skills, and that he had the know how to win. The disturbing issue was that the whole time he was talking to us after his introduction he was continually text messaging on his Blackberry.
Anyway, that is my take so far. I am still undecided on the Senate race, and probablly will remain so until the convention.
Hope this helps!
Bob
1. Tim Bridgewater. Certainly seems the most energetic of the candidates. Since Tuesday March 24th, a little over 2 weeks, Tim has visited 21 of the 29 counties in the state, had 30 meetings and telephone discussions with over 850 delegates. Here are a few things I have learned about him:
a. He was raise from humble beginnings by a single mom in a trailer park.
b. As a young man went to Washington DC, where he worked on Reagan's staff.
c. Was involved in working economic issues with South American countries that were in economic crisis.
d. Has been involved in many successful businesses and was responsible for bringing a Hi-Tech 400 person company to Salt Lake City.
e. Believes we should get back to the constitution.
f. Believes that the higher taxes and Federal mandates are crippling small business from growing or starting.
g. Believes in term limits including his own.
h. Beleves in an end to deficit spending.
i. Believes in a strong National Defense.
j. Solving the border problem.
When ask what the difference with he and Mike Lee was he was very complimentary of Mike, and said the difference is that Mike is a constitutional lawyer and he, Tim, is a businessman who believes in the Constitution.
2. Mike Lee
a. Mike was the son of a Constitutional Lawyer who worked for President Reagan.Mike attributes his love for the Constitution from his Dad who always discussed the Constitution around the dinner table.
b. Believes in a strong National Defense.
c. Close the borders to illegal aliens
d. Solve the National Debt crisis.
e. Pro-life.
f. Reducing Federal restrictions and increasing State rights.
g. Term Limits.
You can visit both websites of Mike and Tim:
Tim Bridgewater:
http://timbridgewater.com
Mike Lee
http://www.mikelee2010.com/
Morgan Philpot. The meeting with Morgan Philpot was less informative! He made a big deal about how Matheson's race was going to be a Republican targeted race to defeat Matheson. He emphasized his campaign skills, and that he had the know how to win. The disturbing issue was that the whole time he was talking to us after his introduction he was continually text messaging on his Blackberry.
Anyway, that is my take so far. I am still undecided on the Senate race, and probablly will remain so until the convention.
Hope this helps!
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
