That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.

But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.

The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.

Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”

“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”

And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,

“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”

Let’s take a stroll backward through time.

Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:

“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”

Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”

But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:

“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”

Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:

“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”

Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.

Since his election, Huntsman has taken some pretty hard left turns, such as advocating for policies to combat global warming, and vocally supporting same-sex unions.

Now, it appears he is trying to clear his own path to the Presidency by marginalizing conservatives in the Party.

Well, this Utah conservative won’t be supporting him. And, frankly, Barak Obama’s recent decision to send Huntsman to China is the best thing he’s done so far. We’ve got a conservative governor now, who has expressed support for the work of the Patrick Henry Caucus.

It looks like big changes are coming to Utah politics. It’s about time.

All of these are great ideas but, so far, I have not heard anyone proposing the one thing that is essential to any States’ Rights movement–the restoration of representation for the States in the Senate. The repeal of the 17th Amendment will return the Constitution to it’s original form where States’ Rights are recognized at the national level, and I will be proposing such an initiative at the Patrick Henry Caucus formation meeting this Thursday.

The Founders sought to create a system of government based upon checks and balances on power. Their efforts have suffered many attacks in the succeeding 220 years since the adoption of the Constitution. But, in my opinion, none have been so effective at destroying what they sought to accomplish as the 17th Amendment, which reads,

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally laid out a very simple, but effective, way to separate the powers of government in the Legislature. They separated the Legislature into two houses–one elected by the people and one appointed by the Legislatures of the several States. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

Each senator was to be appointed to that position in the national government. This is a very important point that should not be overlooked or misinterpreted. Government appointments are oftentimes construed as a form of corruption. The Founders didn’t think so. In fact, the Senate was to be appointed for the very purpose of preventing corruption. Allow me an explanation.

The members of the House of Representatives are elected, according to the Constitution, by popular vote every two years. This puts them in constant need to be responsive to their constituents if they want to get re-elected. If they aren’t doing what their constituents want, they shouldn’t be re-elected. The short time frame also helps to minimize the damage that could be done to our form of limited government. The combination of short terms, and direct accountability to the people, was intended to create an environment hostile to the creation of Legislation. Congress wasn’t created to “do something” because the Founder’s didn’t want a lot of laws being passed by Congress. In the Federalist #62, Madison and Hamilton argue,

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”

The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a deliberative body. The six-year terms would give enough time to accomplish something, while still short enough to keep them in mindfulness of their purpose in being elected. Additionally, because the Senate was appointed by the voice of the Legislatures of the several States, it was hoped the influence of party (or faction) would not become an issue. The current methods used by Senators to get re-elected, i.e. gathering campaign contributions from special interests, would not have been possible previous to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act would be unnecessary under the conditions that obtained under the original program laid out in the Constitution, as the effects the Act was intended to combat would be very difficult to achieve.

The appointment of Senators by the States was meant to assure that the interests of the States were represented in the federal government, a very sticky point for many of the convention delegates. During the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton sought to comfort the skeptics of the Constitution by pointing out,

“When you take a view of all the circumstance which have been recited, you will certainly see that the senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependence and affection. If they are ambitious to continue in office, they will make every prudent arrangement for this purpose, and, whatever may be their private sentiments or politics, they will be convinced that the surest means of obtaining reelection will be  a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states.”

Today, we see quite readily that the 17th Amendment has not improved upon that idea.

An example of how the system has been corrupted from its original purpose as a result of the 17th Amendment can be found by examining the campaign contributions of a certain Senator currently serving. Campaign finance records show that Chris Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, had only five (5) contributors from his home State in the last election. The vast majority of his campaign contributions came from special interests outside his home State. How can he claim to represent the State of Connecticut when he is beholden to other interests? The New Testament points out that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” The conflict that arises in someone trying to serve two masters was precisely why a system of checks and balances was put in place by the Founders, who understood its power as an effective hedge against corruption.

Another example is the case of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed by a vote of 50-48.  Some senators voted against the bill on the grounds that an Amendment would be unnecessary, and the decision should be best left to the States. That would be true if the composition of the Senate was still decided by the States. But the States are now subject to the whims of the federal courts, which will likely someday rule to force the states to recognize gay marriage against the will of the people of those States, because the States are left without representation in the Senate.

The appointment of Senators not only provided the States with representation at the Federal level, it also provided an effective check against the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives, and against the Presidency. This check was essential to preserve the Federalist character of the government established by the Founding Fathers.  The States were to act as a check and balance against encroachment by the Federal government, and to help curb the appetites of the People, which could lead to the country’s ruin; the Senate was the States’ first line of defense. Roger Sherman expressed as much in a letter to John Adams in July, 1789,

“The senators, being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States.”

The Founders hoped that the appointment of Senators would prevent partisanship in Congress. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said, “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally. . . . A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” But, since the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the Senate has become increasingly partisan, especially in the last 20 years. When chosen by the several State Legislatures, the Senators would be two people thought to best represent the needs and views of the State regardless of party affiliation. An easy choice today would be one from the Republicans and one from the Democrats, thus providing equal representation for both major parties in the Senate. But if the Senate grew too partisan, the States could simply choose along different criteria. In the end, the state would choose its representation. Additionally, if a state had problems choosing senators, only that state, rather than the entire country, would suffer.

The 17th Amendment was adopted to supposedly streamline this portion of the Constitution. According to John MacMullin, the primary reason for ratification of the 17th Amendment was difficulties in the appointment process. He writes,

“The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months.”(emphasis in the original)

However, the procedural issue was one that could have been easily solved. The current contest between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman is evidence that ratifying the 17 Amendment did not have the desired effect after all. Minnesota may not have a sitting Senator at the moment, but judging from statements by the Founder’s, they didn’t believe that would pose too great a problem. The passage of the 17th Amendment was a shortsighted answer with long-term ramifications.

The consequences of the actions taken to “correct” this problem are manifold. The balance of power which once existed between the States and the Federal government was completely destroyed. The change from appointment by the States to popular election of Senators took our system of government further away from a Republic, and a long way towards a pure Democracy. In the view of the Founders, pure Democracy was to be strictly avoided. James Madison, in Federalist #10, writes, “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” What was intended to correct the problems of deadlocked state legislatures has created a national Legislature composed of elected officials more beholden to special interests (what James Madison referred to as factions), than to the people they were elected to represent. It would be in the nation’s best interest to have a few states occasionally experience temporary problems choosing their senators, than for the entire country to suffer under the tyrannies of special interests. What’s more, when weighing the temporary loss of a sitting Senator against the permanent, ongoing damage to the Republic brought about by the current “solution,” there is little question which is the better choice.

Arguments for repealing the 17th Amendment range from keeping the Constitution pure to solving the campaign finance problem. State representation at the federal level, one of the major checks on federal power, is now virtually non-existent. The Senate is divided sharply along party lines and, in its current character, does not represent the views of the majority of the states or of the people. A state-appointed Senate also would, in the best interests of the states they represent, shut down federal judicial usurpation of State authority. A popularly elected Senate, bought and paid for by special interests, will never accomplish these tasks.

The Patrick Henry Caucus is being formed in an effort reestablish the representation for the States in the National legislature. For nearly 100 years, the States have had no voice in Federal legislation, and we are now seeing the consequences of our shortsightedness. It’s time to rectify that mistake. The Patrick Henry Caucus needs our support, but the movement will be short-lived if we do not remove the one great obstacle to our success. It’s time to repeal the 17th Amendment.

PLEASE NOTE: THE LOCATION HAS CHANGED

Please join us on April 15, 2009 at the Old Utah County Courthouse of the corner of University Ave. and Center St. in Provo from 5:00 to 7:00 PM.

Scheduled speakers include Third District Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Provo Mayor Lewis Billings. Rep. Chaffetz will be speaking at 5:00 sharp, so please come early. You won’t want to miss anything.

Also, please remember that these protests are not about attacking any specific government official, or impeaching Barak Obama, or anything like that. This is about restoring Constitutional government to America. We are gathering to let our public servants across the country know that we surround them, and that they answer to us, we do not answer to them.

I personally know of individuals who are opposed to these protests who plan to be present to disrupt the activities. Be aware that anything you say to them or do to them will be used to discredit the entire movement, not only on individual blogs, but in the mainstream media as well. Do not engage them. They do not have honorable motives.

I recommend responding to their heckling only with this, from Samuel Adams:

“If ye love [redistributed] wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” (Insert mine)

Please join us as we peaceably remind our public servants that we are a free, sovereign people. Let’s celebrate our Independence early this year.

Other Tea Parties in Utah:

• Salt Lake Tea Party
• Southern Utah Tea Party

I am proud to say that my support of Jason Chaffetz puts me squarely in line with the principles of the Caucus, which has also endorsed Jason.

If it is not yet apparent to you how bad things are in Washington, maybe you need to find another source of news and information. The MOM (Move-On Media) is not telling you even half the story, and the part they are telling you is not even half true.

The answer is to simply stop listening to them. Turn off the TV; there’s very little of value on TV and a lot of indoctrination going on, even in the everyday sitcoms and drama series. You want news and information? Try talk radio. Yes, they are biased to one side of the political spectrum, but they will be the first to tell you that up front, unlike the MOM which pretends to be unbiased but isn’t. The broadcasters of Talk radio aren’t hiding things from you and aren’t twisting events to suit their worldview.

Most people I know, that listen to talk radio, are the most informed people I have come across. They take the news events that are described by the radio talkers and distill out the basic principles on their own. The more time they listen to talk radio, the more apt they are to being open to discussion on a host of issues.

What is truly ironic is that the proxies of the MOM almost always criticize listeners of talk radio as being stupid, uneducated, or brainwashed. Of course, the people who listen exclusively to MOM sources are never described in such condecending and patronizing terms. That, of itself, is proof that what I’m telling you is true.

So back to the orginal point, I would encourage you to watch the presentation of the Independence Caucus on their website. Find out what the MOM has not been telling you about the current situation. And join us!

The Utah Republican Assembly previously endorsed Jason Chaffetz for Congress. My guess is that they will continue to back Jason, and will oppose Jim Matheson.

Actually, it’s getting so most Democratic politicians are spineless wienies in the face of the Democratic leadership. The more of them we can send home in November, the sooner we can all get our lives back in order.

The DUV-PAC Board of Directors will include:

• Chairman, David Pyne (Salt Lake County Republican Assembly)
• Vice-chairman, Larry Meyers (Utah Republican Assembly)
• Merrill Cook (U-FIRE)
• Don Guymon (editor of the Grassroots legislative report)
• Chris Herrod (Utah House of Representatives)
• Lowell Nelson (President, Utah Republican Liberty Caucus)
• Mike Thompson (Utah County Republican Assembly and former State Representative)

I noticed no-one from the Sutherland Institute was on the list, which makes sense considering their recent statements concerning Immigration reform. It appears they are more “Doug Wright Republicans” than Conservatives. They have allowed themselves to be caught in the compassion trap, i.e. where Mercy robs Justice and the Rule of Law is set aside with flawed arguments about how the kids are innocent.

Their position on immigration is simply Liberalism hiding among Conservative ideas–kind of like how our mothers told us that the Devil will tell us a thousand truths if he can get us to believe one lie. Don’t buy the lie. It’s the ice cream with just a tiny bit of dog poop in it.

I don’t agree with everything in the DUV-PAC platform, but I think they deserve our support.

The letter says it all.

Dear Friend,

The race in Utah is heating up and our man, Jason Chaffetz, is closing in on one of La Raza’s favorite congressman, Chris Cannon. You remember the Cannon-he’s famous for saying that in Utah, “We don’t often times make the distinction between legal and illegal [immigrants]”

Two weeks ago, when in Utah for my son’s wedding, I made of point of having lunch with Jason and his wife. I wanted to be certain he was the kind of candidate who deserved the endorsement of Team America and your support as well.

I am excited to tell you he is all that and more. Solid on the issues, Tancredo-good on immigration-Jason is also tough and gutsy. He will not buckle under pressure. Jason is exactly what we need in Washington.

I just spoke with Jason and he is really thrilled with the feel of the campaign. As well he should be-he has closed to within 2% of Cannon!!!

But he needs our help if he is to beat Cannon. The establishment, ethnic lobbyists, and corporate buddies are once again pouring money into Cannon’s coffers. They know he is a solid vote for their amnesty and guest worker bills. They will do all they can to keep Cannon in Congress-and Jason out.

Jason’s knows he needs to get his message right to the people with strong radio ads. He has already cut the ads-now he needs to raise the money to get them on air!

And Chris Cannon is up to his old tricks. His website has an outrageously misleading video on immigration in which Cannon claims to be against amnesty!! We need to help Jason get the facts out about Cannon’s record and Jason will win this congressional seat.

He needs our help and he needs it now. If there is anyway you can make a contribution to him please do so TODAY. Jason has promised me that all the money Team America raises for him will be used to buy radio Your generous contribution will be used for Jason’s radio buy.

If you want to make your contribution directly to his campaign at his website. Otherwise contribute to Team America and mark in the comment section “For Jason”. We will then send Jason-overnight-a check for the total amount of earmarked contributions. (Team America keeps no portion of contributions earmarked for candidates.)

Thanks again for everything you do to protect and secure this nation.

Warmest regards,
Bay Buchanan

2% is likely within the statistical margin of error. Jason can win this election. The people of Utah are tired of Cannon’s empty rhetoric and constant inaction. Glenn Beck told his listeners today about the 6,000 people who have been killed along our border with Mexico over the past couple of years by violent gangs. Our legislators knew almost nothing about it. This is why we need strength in Congress. We need someone who can shake those dullards out of their sleepy comfort. Congress needs a new spine. Chris Cannon has failed us in that regard.

Let’s really hit Cannon hard in the next few weeks. Go Jason!

In our society, we don’t see them murdering others. Instead we see a different kind of violence–a psychological rather than physical violence. Thomas Sowell has written a column today that explains what I mean.

Dr. Sowell exposes abuse of the same character as found in Jonah Goldberg’s recent book, Liberal Facism. In it, Mr. Goldberg delivers well-documented evidence of the Left’s heritage of coercion. The American flavor of Fascism comes with smiles and institutional programs and rehabilitation. The insidious nature of the American Left’s abuse is the assurance that it’s for your own good.

Dr. Sowell highlights another aspect of Leftism in America–those programs designed to “help” people who are incapable of helping themselves. The American Left sees itself as superior to everyone else on the planet. Their arrogance and self-adulation are the source of their belief in their own moral superiority. But in order to feel vindicated, they need some outward evidence of that superiority. As Dr. Sowell points out, that’s where they latch onto others, preferably people of color, or other types of minorities (i.e. the poor, women, the disabled, etc). These people become trophies. They are used as evidence of the Left’s goodness.

The abuse is not limited to the American Left, either. A news report from MSN shows that child sexual abuse by UN peacekeeping forces and humanitarian experts is widespread and little or nothing is done to curb the problem. These are not right-wingers arranging sex-for-food deals with 14-year-old girls. What is the Left’s response? Demands that we reinstate funding for abortions overseas.

Glenn Beck’s column gives us another view of the results of the “help” the left offers. It is unfortunate that some republicans have parroted the line about immigrants filling jobs Americans won’t do. In their attempts at being compassionate, those who favor illegal immigration by doing nothing to stop it have created what Glenn calls “Corporate slavery.”

The living conditions described in some of Glenn’s examples are appalling. Perhaps the line should be reworked to say “living the life Americans won’t live.” The Left has a contemptible knack for looking the other way when their ideas produce misery. This isn’t compassion. It is the natural result of believing you are superior to everyone else. The Left traffics in Condescension, and there is enough for everyone.

The Left does nothing out of true charity or altruism. Everything is calculated to produce some kind of gain whether it be political, financial, or otherwise. In countries where civility has not firmly taken root, murder may be one of the methods used to produce such gain.

The Left always seeks power over others. Invariably the stated goal is the good of the people. It is alarming how many must die as part of the achievement of that goal. Some argue the world would be better off if the Left did not exist. One thing is certain–there would be a lot more people.

From the URA press release:

The Utah Republican Assembly is a nonprofit organization of conservative Republicans with chapters in Salt Lake, Utah, and Washington counties. The Assembly, which was re-established in Utah in 2005, is founded on traditional conservative principles, such as support for the U.S. Constitution, defending American sovereignty, limiting government and taxes, and promoting individual responsibility and liberties.

The Republican Assembly is not an official branch of the Utah Republican Party. The Utah Republican Party does not endorse Republican candidates until they have won the Party’s nomination at a convention or in a primary.

For more information about the Republican Assembly, contact Assembly President Larry Meyers at dixierepublican@yahoo.com.

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies is active in politics in the various states and at the national level. Their website can be found at http://www.gopwing.com