Posts Tagged ‘election’

Ron Paul’s Amazing Predictions

Someone sent me a link to this amazing set of predictions Ron Paul made in 2002 in a speech on the floor of the House. Check it out and then listen to Judge Napolitano tell it like only the Judge can. :)

Now I realize there’s a lot of Mitt fans on this site and in our state. Mitt has a ton of great qualities that I admire (including his success as a capitalist, Newt :)). However, the more I understand Ron Paul’s positions from his perspective, and not just what others say about him, the more I’ve come to agree that he is the right candidate to be president. Mitt Romney has said he would do nothing with the Federal Reserve and just let them be. The Federal Reserve is right at the top of the list for who to blame for the economic woes we’re having. Mitt doesn’t get that and that’s a major strike in my book. Mitt might know how to run a business but I have to question his commitment to sound economic policy. Mitt also chastised Rick Perry when he called social security a Ponzi scheme and I have to ask myself if I want a president who has been in business all his life that doesn’t understand what a Ponzi scheme is (or says this for political expediency)? It’s frustrating to want to feel like Mitt’s the man for the job, but can’t bring myself over the hurdles to do so.

Ron Paul isn’t perfect and there are a few issues I disagree with him on, but they are pretty minor when I contrast them with the positives and I remind myself that as president, he gets the bully-pulpit and veto power, but he doesn’t make the law or create executive orders to bypass congress (at least in Ron’s case). What some people call wacky ideas will probably never be initiated in the congress and so what we’d be left with in Ron Paul is a president who  lives 100% by the Constitution. When something isn’t authorized in the Constitution, he wouldn’t allow it a straight passage and would defer it to the states where it belongs. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Yet sadly, some people think that’s as destructive as Obama.

All that said, Mitt’s got a better chance of getting the nomination than Ron Paul and if he wanted to pull a few RP supporters over, he should announce that if he’s elected, he would make Ron Paul the Secretary of the Treasury.

If you missed my first post which helped me get over Ron Paul’s foreign policy by understanding it, here’s a link (Is Ron Paul the answer?). If you’ve heard Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, this video debate on the Larry King show explains his position on it and I find myself completely agreeing with him especially on growing hemp (which isn’t the drug marijuana).

I have also posted a very important quote from J. Reuben Clark below the videos. He served in the highest positions of the LDS church as a member of the First Presidency, a counselor to the Prophet during WW2.

Someone posted this quote on my Facebook page and it’s simply a matter of principle. Do we believe the Founding Fathers were inspired and had lasting insights, or has the world changed so much that some of these beliefs are obsolete. Personally, I think these are timeless principles and J. Reuben Clark was an individual who knew first hand about the military industrial complex getting us into war. If you don’t know his history in business and how he was hired by the people who wanted to own war factory production, you can read something about it here (J. Reuben Clark talk by Cleon Skousen). Here is his quote.

“I am a political isolationist because:

I full believe in the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen. The whole history of America before and since the Revolution proves the truthfulness of their assertions. All during our pre-Revolutionary history we were at war, we were robbed, plundered, and massacred because of European wars, in the issues and causes of which we had no concern. History is repeating itself.

I believe American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes.

I believe that permanent peace will never come into the world from the muzzle of a gun. Guns and bayonets will, in the future as in the past, bring truces, long or short, but never peace that endures.

I believe President Wilson had the true principle when he spoke of the strength and power of the moral force of the world. Moral force in a nation fructifies industry, thrift, good will, neighborliness, the friendly intercourse of nations, the peace that all men seek; whereas force is barren.

I believe America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century.

I believe that moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations.

I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.

I believe we should once more turn our brains and our resources to the problem, not of killing men, women, and children, combatant and noncombatant, but of bringing to them more of good living and high thinking.

I believe political isolation will bring to us the greatest happiness and prosperity, the greatest temporal achievement not only, but the highest intellectual and spiritual achievement also, the greatest power for good, the strongest force for peace, the greatest blessing to the world. ”

President J. Reuben Clark — Church News 11/22/1947

Last, if you want to see a sad clip about the media completely dismissing Ron Paul, watch the first few minutes of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show here from the episode after the New Hampshire Primary. Stewart roasts Laurence O’Donnell for trying to say John Huntsman was the real 2nd place winner “if we remove Ron Paul from the equation.” Stunning bias against Ron Paul. The media does not want him in the White House.

More Reasons for Partisan School Board Elections

I received this letter this morning from Nicole Toomey Davis who ran against Kim Burningham in a State School Board race last year, on the need for passing SB 224, Partisan School Board Elections. Please pass this on to everyone you know today and have them ask their House member to vote YES for SB 224


Dear friends:
It has been several months since the frenzy of the campaign.  I want you to know (again), how much your support meant to me.  It was a fantastic experience, even though I didn’t win the election for SBOE #5.  Thank you for your support, encouragement and friendship!

As you may have seen, the Senate just passed SB 224, Partisan School Board Elections.  I wanted to share with you my thoughts on the State Board of Education elections overall – I learned a great deal about the process and this may be helpful to you.  If you agree with my assessment, I encourage you to reach out to your Representatives in the House (info below), and let them know that you want talented people to run for the State Board on a level playing field.   I will note that the “other side” is working the email, fax and phones!

Here are my thoughts on current SBOE elections:

1) Our current system is not “non-partisan” (as is frequently stated), it is a “one party election” – and the ONLY party that is active in education politics is the “education employees party”.  The “other” candidate in any education race is an independent – and independents don’t win very often.  (As I frequently said when I started my campaign, I was a “lonely candidate” because none of the political parties will support non-partisan candidates!)

Here is what a party does for a candidate:
a) establish a platform
b) vet candidates to see which are most consistent with that platform
c) endorse candidates so that members and “likeminded” people don’t have to do the research themselves
d) post information about the candidate or links to candidate information on an establish “party” website that members and likeminded poeple ALREADY know about
e) provide a base of voters and donors to the candidate (due to endorsement)
f) encourage donations to the candidate
g) send out information to “members” by email and snail mail.

Now, let me tell you what the Davis Education Association did for Kim Burningham in this past election

a) established  a platform – pro-teachers and pro-“association”
b) interviewed candidates (they “invite” all  candidates to be interviewed by 1/2 dozen key DEA people  – I didn’t know it was to be “vetted”)
c) Endorsed Kim Burningham publicly
d) Posted that endorsement on their existing and well known DEA website, which is visited by DEA members AND by other like-minded people, including OTHER (non-teacher) school district employees
(note that there are 8000 Davis School District employees, about half of them are teachers – Kim Burningham consistently gets about 24,000 votes….. DSD employees + a couple of friends = consistent victory for the union representative)
e) Provide a built in base of voters and donors for Kim (Kim sent emails to DSD employees AT SCHOOL, and the DEA sent email to DSD employees AT SCHOOL, showing the link for Kim’s fundraising to date so that DSD employees could support him!)
f) Encourage donations to the candidate (see above)
g) Send out information to “members” by email and snail mail. (DEA sent out a mailed letter to teachers AT SCHOOL endorsing Kim, stating outright lies about me – things that were known factually to be untrue by the DEA president and facts were available online -, and stridently encouraging teachers to vote for Kim B.)

My husband coined this phrase “you aren’t running in a non-partisan election, you’re running in a one-party election and YOU’RE the independent candidate”.

Let’s return school politics to a fair and balanced system.  Every candidate should have the ability to have the support of a party, rather than just one candidate having that support and any other candidate being “lonely”.

In addition, as much as 20% of the electorate, IN THE ELECTION BOOTH, voting for other candidates, do NOT vote for the State Board of Education.  Many people say “they don’t know who to vote for”.  It is very difficult for voters to find out information about SBOE candidates, as there is no centralized place to go during election season.  In the case of the District #5 election, that 20% would have reversed the final outcome.

Finally, the current system places anyone other than a candidate endorsed by the “education employees party” at a severe disadvantage.  I was put on the ballot on August 1st!  94 days from campaign start to election day. Mr. Burningham had been campaigning since at least March, during all of the various conventions.  Hardly a “level” playing field.

Had I known about this severe structural imbalance in the race for State Board of Education, I would NEVER have run.  Only a fool would run under a system where this is NO CHANCE of success.  I tell this to other talented business people who would add a lot of value to our education system.  I tell them not to waste their time and money (and that of their supporters).   It is a sad conclusion, and my heart aches to say it, but I had as much support as it is possible to imagine, and you and your neighbors in our district turned out, but we simply could not overcome the tremendous advantages that accrue to the “party candidate” in a one-party system (just look at Egypt and its neighbors!!!).

Let’s make a system where great, talented and dedicated people of all interests and backgrounds can declare that background (through party affiliation) and can have the support of the party of their choice in running for the State Board of Education.  Politics is already completely embedded in the State Board of Education races, let’s just make sure all of the voters know it!

Please support SB 224  Partisan School Board Elections.

To reach your representatives, please visit (you can also fax a note to your Rep at  801-326-1544 and it will be delivered to them)

Thank you again for your support.  I hope this is helpful to you (and if not, just hit the delete key ;-).  If it is helpful, you are welcome to forward it on to others who may find it helpful.
Best Regards,

The Need for Partisan School Board Elections in Utah

In fiscal year 2011 for the state of Utah’s budget, 50% of revenues will come from state income taxes and 49.7% of expenditures by the state will go toward the education system (UT Budget Report). Billions of dollars are spent on the education of our children and yet there are those in the public who shout that education is non-partisan. Nothing with that much money at stake is non-partisan. Powerful players vie for control of those dollars. Hundreds of companies provide “vital” services to our various school districts. They in turn scream for more money because of the “tremendous good” they can do with it. However, how do we know those funds are being spent wisely to get the most bang for our buck? Where is the accountability? It’s a never ending cycle where the schools ask for money and then bites the legislative hand that feeds them. We tolerate this as the public because we’ve become accustomed, or dare I say “enculturated” into believing that “good people” run our schools and so they can do no wrong. The people who run our schools may very well be “good people” but that doesn’t mean they have the education of our children as their top priority. One look at Alpine School District’s love affair with Investigations math and the removal of the times tables and long division will clearly illustrate the lack of common sense amongst “educators” and get you questioning what their real agenda is.

One solution to this problem is to have partisan school board elections. The 15 state school board members control half the budget of Utah and individually have territory which is double the size of a state senator. There is no way they can get a message out to voters to inform them of where they stand on issues. In local school districts we have similar issues. Large areas of territory are covered in some of the mega districts like Alpine, Davis, Granite, Jordan, etc… Those school board candidates are never closely examined by voters because it’s hard to get the message out to so many people on such limited funds. It’s also an advantage to the incumbent who may rely on some name recognition to carry him/her through a close race. Partisan school board elections would mean a much smaller number of delegates elected in OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS would examine those candidates up close and make a decision to shrink the list of candidates down to size.

I would like to hear from you about what you think are good reasons for and against partisan school board elections. I’ve put a couple lists below. Please comment on this topic below and add any items you can think of to either list. In the future I may update the list according to some of the comments. Thank you for your help.

If your comment is not related to this topic, I will remove your comment. This should remain an easy list for the public to scan down and see the pros and cons of partisan school board elections.

Reasons against (or things some will claim):

  1. Education isn’t partisan so elections shouldn’t be
  2. We’re in the most conservative state/district and now you want to control education with partisanship?
  3. Party money may influence elections
  4. Members will be more influenced by their party politics than their constituents

Responses/Reasons for:

  1. Everything involving money is partisan
  2. You think the NEA and UEA aren’t partisan?
  3. If you think schools are already conservative what are you afraid of having partisan elections? Nothing would change.
  4. The state history standards have a number of very liberal statements like calling health care a right and calling the constitution a “living document.” These are extremely liberal positions.
  5. Nobody studies the candidates for school board in elections because they are non-partisan. Making them partisan means hundreds of delegates will examine candidates closely and see who would do the best job from their party. This raises the quality of candidates making them go through a close examination within their political party.
  6. Having to sell yourself to delegates instead of to the public prior to a primary is much less expensive. This saves candidates time and money and allows more individuals to attempt to run for office without needing deep cash pockets right from the start.
  7. Control over spending large amounts of money is principle based. Partisan control helps put board members in that have a known ideology.
  8. We opted for representational government because “we the people” can’t examine every issue and vote on it with a good working knowledge of the issue. We elect delegates who volunteer to take the time to closely examine candidates and ensure they will represent us well. That’s how a republic functions.
  9. Texas did this, got a conservative majority on the state school board, and for the first time in decades created history standards that teach both sides of the story.
  10. State School Board Districts (15) are twice as big as State Senate Districts (29), and State School Board candidates never have the resources to even send one mailer to all the voters in their area. Voters who do not hear about a state school board member cannot make an informed vote. Nonpartisan elections are intended for small local races (like City Council) where you can presumably meet the candidate, and thus do not need a party affiliation.  But the 15 members of the State School Board in 2012 will likely have approximately 200,000 residents in their district!  There is no way they can meet with more than 20,000, under any circumstances.  In other words, party affiliation is absolutely necessary in any election on such a big scale.
  11. The education budget of Utah is the largest single category of expenditures. Money is always partisan. Power flocks to money. Hiding behind the non-partisan curtain does not allow constituents to know where candidates stand on any issue. Members of the state school board support democratic bills over republican bills by a 2:1 margin according to a former state school board member. This does not represent the makeup of the state electorate.
  12. Saying we don’t want political parties to influence school board elections guarantees that special interest groups will have greater say.
  13. The vetting process of running through a convention race helps weed out unqualified candidates, but does so in a grassroots fashion.
  14. Putting a party line affiliation next to a candidates name helps inform voters that may be unaware of where non-affiliated candidates stand on issues.

Case in point: These images show one candidates’ campaign material touting her as a conservative but there are many who would question her “conservative” credentials. Yet she gets away with saying this because there is no party affiliation and there are no delegates vetting the candidates. This will now start a trend of candidates quickly claiming the conservative “crown” and an unknowing public may believe whichever candidate can get that message out first. This is a disturbing trend that will only confuse and misinform voters. The delegate system works to help closely examine candidates prior to the public being bombarded with a variety of deceptive messages.

JoDee Sundberg Campaign Sign

JoDee Sundberg Campaign Sign

Election Results 2010

2 of our 4 endorsed candidates for Alpine School District won. Wendy Hart beat Chrissy Hannemann and Paula Hill beat Donna Barnes. Congratulations to both of them.

In the other two races, Tim Osborn lost to ASD sponsored John Burton in the American Fork race. This was a case of the district wanting Tim off the board since he’s the lone voice of the parents and Burton is a former district administrator. Tim has done an awesome job on the board advocating for better math and parent’s rights and he will certainly be missed.

In another unfortunate loss marred by scare tactics, JoDee Sundberg supporters put out a flier calling JoDee the “conservative” candidate and announcing that Scott would essentially defund public schools. Scott handled all the charges leveled at him very well, but unfortunately the public bought into the lies and re-elected JoDee, the establishment choice.

JoDee Sundberg Campaign Sign

JoDee Sundberg Campaign Sign

My Continuing Position on Public Education

It seems that no matter how many times I try to explain something, there are always a few people who feel they are gifted to look beyond what I say or write and that it’s just a cover for what I really believe. I’m not smart enough to live 2 lives that way and have one set of beliefs and values that I hide and keep separate from what I say publicly.

For example, this was recent posted on one candidate website.

[candidate] are you an advocate for traditional public schools?  Oak Norton and associates are anti-public education and pro-private education as indicated by his Powerpoint displayed on his website. You were endorsed by that group.  Does that endorsement mean that you are also against public education?  If so, why should we elect someone who associates with those who are anti-public education or makes bombastic and baseless comments such as Superintendent Henshaw is buddies with Bill Ayers?

Let me explain this one more time for the benefit of my readers. I am not anti-public education, I am anti-federal government involvement in public education (my own children are in a wonderful PUBLIC school). I am against dumbing our children down with weak math and revisionist history. I am anti-John Goodlad involvement in public education. It just so happens that the Alpine School District is tied at the hip with John Goodlad and his literature and teachings are being passed out to our teachers to read from and be taught in professional development. Goodlad is a humanist with dangerous beliefs. He is a socialist and uses his forums to transform America into a socialist state. He is friends with Bill Ayers and Ayers is the keynote speaker at the Goodlad conference this month. Vern Henshaw was on the executive committee of Goodlad’s national organization (NNER) when Bill Ayers was a speaker at another conference. ASD’s Superintendent is fully aware of Goodlad’s positions yet continues to allow his teachings to be disseminated to teachers. To anyone who hasn’t watched the presentation referenced above, here’s a link. Go see for yourself what was presented and you’ll discover a national movement to destroy religious morality, belief in God, and to separate children from their parents. The public education teachers that were present thanked us after the presentation.

This individual continues his post:

My feeling is that anyone who is associated with Oak Norton and subsequently the radical Eagle Forum, and the conspiracy theory-laden John Birch Society should not be serving the children of ASD. I’m also disturbed by the fact that Oak Norton supports the Texas education standards which indoctrinates children to learn about Phylis Schlafly, ultra-conservative movements such as the Eagle Forum, and rewrites history by inaccurately vindicating McCarthyism?  Do you support a core curriculum that makes an attempt to be politically neutral and teach students to evaluate and think for themselves or do you support the right-wing ideological indoctrination of our students as those who endorse you do?

So the attack continues. Lets look at how this person succeeds in labeling the situation by presenting the facts. The individual begins by naming the Eagle Forum and John Birch Society to be radical and shouldn’t be serving the children of ASD. I am a member of neither organization but I believe them to be wonderful groups who spend countless hours promoting freedom issues and support of the constitution. The JBS actually produced the 10 minute video found on this site in the upper right corner which explains the difference between a republic and a democracy. The Eagle Forum was founded by Phillis Schlafly, a woman who stepped forward in the 70’s to stop the feminist movement. Her efforts had a tremendous impact on the entire nation. This individual thinks children will be “indoctrinated” to learn about her contributions, but I disagree. This is what one single Texas history standard actually says about Ms. Schlafly.

Describe the causes, key organizations, and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association;

If the individual feels this is conservative indoctrination to learn about such individuals and organizations that have had an impact on America, then why does he not decry the other side of the coin when further down the Texas standards later include the contributions of Hillary Clinton?

Evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Hillary Clinton.

This individual seems to have seen a group he despises and leveled charges. The John Birch society isn’t even mentioned in the standards so it’s further confusing to his point to bring them into his rant.

His last charge that the Texas history standards are rewriting history are amusing when our history books already contain a rewriting of history calling the Framers of our Constitution deists and accusing them of all manner of immorality. His specific charge deals with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Venona papers. Have you ever heard of the Venona papers? Neither has most of the country because that was removed from our history books as well. I’d never heard of them till this year. Here’s what the Texas standards say:

Describe how Cold War tensions were intensified by the arms race, the space race, McCarthyism, and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the findings of which were confirmed by the Venona Papers.

This is a completely relevant standard. High schoolers should be taught what happened during the Cold War including the facts about what McCarthy was doing and what was later shown to be correct. Did McCarthy finger some people who were innocent? Possibly so, but to ignore the significant findings of the Venona papers would be the equivalent of indoctrinating our children in the false assumption that there were no Soviet spies and that McCarthy was on a baseless witch hunt. The Venona papers identified 349 persons who had some level of relationship with the Soviet Union, from Alger Hiss and other well known spies, to many whose code names have never been matched up with real individuals.

The Texas history standards are a landmark achievement for presenting history as factual and fair. It removes the prior revisionist history and adds important facts. Significantly more minorities are discussed with their contributions to America. America is repeatedly identified as a constitutional republic (for a change from democracy). And there is a newfound emphasis on the founding documents of our nation. If you haven’t taken a look at them, here’s a link to see for yourself.

Here’s one I just noticed that is new to these standards:

Describe U.S. citizens as people from numerous places throughout the world who hold a common bond in standing for certain self-evident truths

I would love to have Utah adopt these standards. What an improvement over the current indoctrination of diversity and multi-culturalism!

Congratulations to Primary Winners

I would like to congratulate the candidates that made it through the primary election and thank all those who felt strongly enough about the issues to run. Putting your name into “the hat” and making the commitment to run is a big endeavor and nobody can take that effort and experience away from you. Thank you all for making the effort.

Election results can be viewed at this link for Utah:

For Utah county and ASD, you can view them here:

For those that have returned to gloat that the incumbents I was not in favor of all made it through, have at it.  The area below is just for you. :)