Utah GOP Convention Proposals

Good morning Utah state delegates! Today’s convention should be a smooth one. With regard to the proposals, in general they have been vetting thoroughly by the State Central Committee. Your representatives there are working hard for our First Amendment right to assemble, select our nominees, define who our members can be and what we believe in.

There are only a handful that oppose this First Amendment right. Unfortunately enough of our representatives in the state legislature voted against this right to pass SB 54, which is falsely identified as a “compromise.” It is not. It is identical to the original legal brief that the DC lobbyist firm Caplin and Drysdale submitted two years ago, which ignited and launched the Count My Vote initiative.

Follow what the speakers say and vote for the proposals that will strengthen our law suit. Please support this law suit with your vote and your financial support.

Utah’s Caucus Again Misrepresented in the News

I’m feeling more like a broken record as time goes on.  I want to say, “Just read the previous posts,” but I’d like to comment directly to statements made in today’s Deseret News article titled “Gov. Herbert stepping up pressure on GOP to settle ‘civil war.'”

Civil war?  My great grandfather fought in the real Civil War.  Governor, I know what that war was.  This is no civil war.  That’s hyperbole at its finest and a misrepresentation at best.

The author, Lisa Roche, also editorializes in her first sentence, rather than doing her journalistic duty and simply stating the facts and limiting all opinions to quotations within the article.  She identifies Herbert’s “civil war” as the candidate nomination compliance process that “limits the power of party delegates.”

That was an explosive choice of words.  Actually, the party’s concern is a constitutional matter:  does a private corporation have the right to freely assemble, to set its rules and determine qualifications of members and to define its statement of belief – its mission statement, if you will.  This should be a concern to all business owners.  How far should government meddle?

(You might ask Chuck Barber who received a letter of franchise termination from President Obama in 2009, and who found that his family business he had invested in and spent his life building was unilaterally stolen from him and given to a competitor down the street.)

The article stated that the governor “is calling for a leader who can bring the fractured party together.”

Fractured party?  The governor may not be aware, but in the largest counties (including some of the most liberal counties), the “COUNT/BUY MY VOTE” proposal has been soundly defeated by the delegates who understand the constitutional question at stake.

Calling the Utah GOP a “fractured” party is more of a fractured fairytale.  But the Count/Buy My Vote crowd owns the media here, so it was no surprise.

Consider this:  If you belong to a church, do you believe the legislature should be allowed to step in and tell your church how it selects its leaders, what its membership qualifications must be and what its tenets must be?

(Actually, the Courts are attempting to force that on legislatures in one sticky area these days – the definition of marriage, and the steep fines levied against family owned businesses that believe their religious liberty is being infringed if they are forced to provide wedding services for those whose wedding vows violate their religious beliefs.  But let’s not go there for now.)

The governor continued to perpetuate – no, to create – his own civil war (he is the defendant in this legal case, what more could we expect?) with us when he said, “…the chairman needs to work very diligently to unite the party.”

Where has this governor been lately?

This chairman, James Evans, is communicating with members of the party as best he can, in spite of the false press this paper continues to perpetuate.   The dissenters are very few.  The State Central Committee meeting coming up this Saturday is anticipated to be very supportive of the lawsuit and the proposals on the agenda.

The governor has fabricated this “civil war.”  The unpopular challenge made by elitists that don’t even engage in the party, but have for a long time controlled from the shadows with their big bucks, is uniting this party more than ever.  This challenge is actually strengthening the party.

Then the governor commented that he has not decided whether to endorse a candidate for party chairman.  This governor apparently believes that his endorsement will have any impact.  Governors do not own political parties in caucus states.  The people who are engaged do.  In states with open primaries and dual tracks allowing unaffiliated and anyone to petition onto the ballot in a party’s name and that are elected by plurality instead of majority, yes, the elites DO own the party.  That’s what the delegates that support the caucus are trying to preserve – the people’s voice – those that choose to be engaged in the process by attending their neighborhood meetings and being elected by those neighbors.

The governor needs to know that we do not feel any discord.  We are more united than ever.  Who is he getting his information from?  We know that answer.  From the elites that are funding his campaign.  He has entered the ranks of the politically corrupted, good as he is in his personal family life.  It happens all the time.

And that’s at the crux of what we are hoping to preserve in the lawsuit – an ability to stop corrupted politicians – the incumbents who become so after each subsequent term in office.

The Deseret News then states that SB 54 was a “compromise.”  No, it was not a compromise.  We have proof in writing and audio that the Count/Buy My Vote leaders were satisfied that they got exactly what they wanted in the first place with SB 54.

Senator Bob Bennett’s opinion editorial reiterates this inevitable outcome.  He was the catalyst for the Count/Buy My Vote challenge.  Invariably, I have learned as I’ve mingled with them, that they have one thing in common:  They despise Senator Mike Lee and carry enormous resentment against anyone that ran against him and helped defeat him.  This challenge is really nothing more than “sour grapes” from some Bennett diehards that have never gotten over it, even though their candidate clearly has.

The paper also misstated the purpose of the State Central Committee’s meeting on May 30 and its upcoming convention.  We are not there to decide whether we will agree to SB 54 or not.  We are there to chart a legal course to make sure we have Republican candidates on the 2016 ballot and that we WIN the lawsuit (that the judge has told us we will most likely win on constitutional grounds), by so doing.  Let it understood:  The delegates and State Central Committee members have shown in their recent county conventions that they DO NOT support Count/Buy My Vote or SB 54 by virtue of who they elected.  The party survey to which 4,500 have responded so far also show strong support for winning the lawsuit.

A rare exception is Davis County where several of the Count/Buy My Vote leaders live and network.  However, the chairman lost his election only by only three votes, with five votes in his favor that were “misplaced.”  It is a messy day led by a few disgruntled delegates that have since been caught obfuscating the truth.  The body of delegates overwhelmingly passed the resolution to continue to win the lawsuit, while Senator Todd Weiler’s resolution thanking himself and his colleagues for their support of SB 54 barely squeaked by (more of an uncomfortable vote there – many delegates find it difficult to call out an individual Republican official publicly).  More on that county soon…

The Governor’s main concern is that the party maintain its Good Ol’ Boy system so that he can get re-elected by this elitist friends that have rallied to corrupt his views on so many very un-Republican positions such as his support of socialized medicine and putting in place the three policies that will allow the ACA to succeed (ObamaCare), rather than working to defeat it.  Also is his support of progressive education and the national takeover through common core standards and testing.  A third contention is his support of amnesty, which has made Utah the fourth largest sanctuary state in the nation and costing us millions annually (hence the need for “expansion”).

The article got one thing right:  Governor Herbert considers  himself to be the party leader, but he really has no authority.  (Look up the definition of “titular”).  He is technically, in fact, the individual the party is suing because he signed the law that created this disagreement.

The humor of the day was his spokesman Marty Carpenter’s statement, “We want to make sure we have good, conservative Republicans elected.”

The purpose of my blog site is to expose what is conservative and what is not.  Check out these legislative score cards.  You may be surprised how not conservative the state of Utah is.  Reality check.  It begins with the governor’s office.

Additionally, the Deseret News continues to make the injunction loss a big issue.  Attorneys know that injunctions are often lost (they are typically a preliminary step to get the sense of the judge on key points before proceeding) and then the cases move forward and win.  Such is the case.  But this is understandable.  The Deseret News stands to gain from the open primaries.  They will experience a windfall with dozens more media buys from primary candidates flocking to the ballot line.  The paper’s support of Count/Buy My Vote is purely self-interest and its long-standing collaboration with Dan Jones opinion shaping surveys and LaVarr Webb’s media firm Exoro Group.

Kirk Jowers – the DC lobbyist that got the ball rolling through his firm that supports the Democratic National Committee and that created Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC to mock Republican candidates is not worth commenting on here.  You get the point with his mere credentials.

As for the GOP legislative members that voted for SB 54, the delegates have taken note and those that show mediocre to low score cards when held up to the party platform will be held accountable.  If anything good has come from this disagreement, it is that the delegates are now paying much more attention.

The constituents of Representative Dan McCay might want to especially consider a growing attitude problem with their representative.  At times he has been flippant (e.g. admitting the school system is a socialist system, and suggesting we make it more so with a bill that came under fire by conservatives). His most recent comment puts him in the “arrogant incumbent” category when he said that the delegates and party leaders were “engaged in childlike behavior.”

I replied, “You, Dan, are not my parent.”  I suggested that HE was the one that needed to be given a good spanking over his mother’s knee.

The rest of the news about who’s who to challenge Chairman James Evans is not worth discussing.  It’s simply a big YAWN on a slow news day.  The fodder the news tries to create by stirring up the pot that isn’t even boiling is bigger news.  Our concern is that in the middle of a lawsuit, we maintain consistently.  We don’t need to be debating on two fronts.  James Evans has done a good job of keeping us united.

Count/Buy My Vote’s Rich McKeown, made the comment of the century when he said they are “staying out of the race” (for party chairman) and that it will not be taking “any official position on the chairman’s race.”

It doesn’t need to, and that’s not how the elite establishment works.  As he said, they work behind the scenes.  Party leaders, delegates, coalitions and campaigns have never known any of them to show up, become involved and to engage with the unwashed masses.  They do their work by throwing their money around in the media to influence the readers with their distortions.

PS.  Here are some insightful comments posted on Facebook by Dana Dickson, an active supporter of the caucus:

The Deseret News stirs the pot a little with this article and here are my takeaways:

  • This is a notification to UTGOP State Central Committee members, ahead of this Saturday’s meeting, that they are to quit making a fuss and conform to CMV’s wishes.
  • Someone let Marty Carpenter know that “the party continue to produce strong results” and conforming to SB54 are mutually exclusive things since SB54 allows non-party voters to choose Republican candidates.
  • The Governor rightly acknowledges how difficult it has been for Chairman Evans to defend the Caucus/Convention system, as the delegates elected him to do, which is good. But he neglects to mention that Chairman Evans has had to do this while being undermined by the press, past party chairs, and legislators like Dan McCay.
  • The results of the recent UTGOP survey have provided critical guidance Governor Herbert, Chairman Evans, and the legislature all agree on.





Count My Vote-SB 54 Lies and Legends

So much misinformation is floating around the topic of Count My Vote and SB 54. Unfortunately the lies and legends are being promoted recently by the Deseret News. It’s beginning to look a lot like an editorial endorsement to destroy the Republican Party.

That’s not surprising. The editorial board is liberal-leaning, and newspapers make more money when there are more primaries and more candidates.

Which all makes sense, because that’s exactly what CMV/SB54 accomplishes.

The opinion editorial written by Dan Liljenquist, former state Senator, who I personally like (and whose wife has a beautiful singing voice, by the way) and the column that Utah’s high profile lobbyists, LaVarr Webb and Frank Pignanelli wrote recently, merely complicate, confuse and rehash old misinformation.

Sadly, none of these authors have been involved in the discussions between delegate-elected party leaders, delegate-elected State Central Committee members, of which I’m a member, and delegates themselves who are actively engaged in finding solutions. The sideline quarterbacking, the misrepresentations, and the belittling of the hard work of Republican Party Chairman James Evans, the Executive Committee and the State Central Committee in defending its constitutional rights is disheartening, to say the least.

One such legend was attached to the Liljenquist article and bears some review: that SB54 was a compromise. No. CMV threatened the State Central Committee (of which I’m a member) in 2013 with a 26-page legal brief that demanded Utah move to a dual track. SB54 has mandated a dual track.

The commenter wrote:

If the Republican Party wants to pay all the costs for having their own primary, then they have the right to keep it closed and use only the caucus system. If it wants the government to pay for the primary, then the government has the right to set some rules, which they did.

The legislature rescued, rather than sold out, the caucus system with SB54. Without it, the caucus system would be history by now – thanks to the Count My Vote petition. No thinking delegates should be bad-mouthing the legislature, unless they are just keeping a closed mind and refusing to see the facts.

(It’s kind of ironic. This is the same inconsistency delegates had with the push for vouchers. The supporters wanted to get government money for private schools, but thought they could get it without government control. It’s just not possible. Freedom isn’t free. It costs time, money, and/or blood. You want freedom? Then pay for it!)

Let’s examine these points.

The Public-Private Partnership
Who should pay for a primary? Great question. The legislature decided that many sessions ago with the “check a buck” program. That could be changed. The Republican Party could pay for its own primary, but the Democrat Party would not be able to sustain itself.

The “ironic” comment in the last paragraph makes an interesting point using the voucher bill as an example: what about the public-private partnership anyway?

The school voucher law failed, but look what happened: Even though the voucher law was repealed by referendum, the legislature doesn’t need vouchers for private schools anymore. Instead, a private school can now apply for a public charter, and they get the vouchers! The commenter is correct: By so doing, they must comply with all the federal and state laws.

The troubling fact is that, in some communities, private schools can’t compete with FREE charter schools. The result is that they are either being forced to go out of business, apply for a charter and secularize. Quite a dilemma for a Catholic or religious private school. And for the Republican principle of free enterprise and “choice.” But everyone LOVES charter schools. So three cheers for charters!

(BYU also takes government funds for research grants and student loans. By so doing, it must comply with government regulations.)

Corporate America is also in bed with the public-private partnership. How many corporations now ask for subsidies or are given tax incentives to relocate to a state or community? Instead of private corporations training their own employees, as they once did, these corporations now rely almost entirely on colleges and universities and trade schools to do it for them – at taxpayer expense.

So, yes. It’s true. There are problems with this arrangement. My point is that it is not just the Republican Party, it’s across the board in nearly every facet of our lives. Government gets to pick and choose who gets to play in a public-private partnership. That is certainly not a Republican ideal.

Defining Membership
CMV/SB54 would allow anyone – the unaffiliated – to petition on to the Republican Primary. Judge Nuffer opened the door for the Republican Party, as a private corporation, to define membership. That’s the purpose of this on-going discussion. Republican leaders are now entertaining all possible solutions that would solve the problem of government telling it what to do. We are now compelled to do whatever we can to prevent a run-away primary under CMV/SB54. Some ideas are better than others. But we have a process and elected leaders who are taking this seriously. We have spent countless hours over the past two years to make improvements where possible.

We now that we know the party can define membership, he question is, what are the qualifications and what is the process for party membership? Is this such an outrageous question? Is membership not the right of any private organization to determine?

A far-fetched, but analogous example is the LDS Church (or any church for that matter). Perhaps the legislature should also tell the LDS church that it must the allow the unaffiliated to be baptized. Wait. Why should there be any qualifications – baptism, commandments, basic tenets of belief. Anything goes.

This is not so far-fetched, when you consider the religious liberty challenges of this recent legislative session, and the extent to which the LDS church went to protect not only its employees, but its church leaders, affiliates, the Boy Scouts of America and its for-profit, commercial enterprises. It went so far as to define “employer” and believe it or not, none of those for-profit businesses are employers, not even the BSA. So, membership definitions are critical.

Do you see the ridiculousness of what CMV/SB54 is imposing on a private organization?

The second point in this confused comment is that with SB54, the legislature rescued the party from losing the caucus to CMV. This is nonsense. CMV was nearing a deadline and did not have nearly enough signatures to get on the ballot. They knew it and so it is precisely the opposite: SB54 rescued CMV.

(As an aside, as with any election process that involves petitioning, there were improprieties involved in the CMV petitions. That should be a forewarning of what we can expect if unaffiliated candidates are allowed to petition on to a ballot. Just ask states that use this dual process.)

SB54 is CMV Tweedle dumWhat the sponsor of SB54 (Senator Curt Bramble) did was to ensure that the dual track, described in the original 2013 CMV legal brief, was enshrined in law through the legislative process. If not, why then are the CMV proponents working so hard against the lawsuit? It’s just tragic that most legislators probably had not seen that original CMV legal brief. I have a copy if anyone is interested.

Lobbyists Love CMV
So Webb and Pignanelli say we should stop this discussion before we embarrass ourselves further.

Webb and Pignanelli are no doubt excellent lobbyists, media buyers and political consultants. They support CMV/SB54 because it favors incumbents, celebrity and money (their clients) – and more of them. The majority of the legislature supported CMV/SB54 to protect their own re-election.

It’s the Little Guy (you and me – the People) against the Big Guy. Webb, Pignanelli and the legislature can control the outcome with CMV/SB54.

Most people do not have time, or lack the interest, to get involved in political campaigns. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a representative republic – not a democracy in Article IV.

The caucus is just that – a constitutional system that is defined by a representative republican form of government election system.

On the other hand, CMV/SB54 is the elitist-lobbyist system that most states have adopted that favor and fuel runaway socialist budgets. The liberal DC lobbyists that have been backing Utah’s CMV/SB54 use California, Colorado and Connecticut as their models.

It’s to a lobbyist or political consultant’s advantage to keep the election among the people least involved and informed so that the unaffiliated can dictate to those that are most involved and informed and affiliated. Why? Because in a primary, name ID will win nearly every time. That means an incumbent advantage. Lobbyists love incumbents. They keep the money rolling in.

The Republican Party is a private corporation that is guaranteed the unalienable right to assemble freely and unfettered. Yet the Utah legislature gave CMV/SB54 authority to lobbyists and themselves to dictate how a private corporation elects its representatives and allows those who are not members of that private corporation to steal its trademark by petition.

Fair Is Fair, Right?
Perhaps the legislature can now use those same principles against other private corporations such as Webb’s Exoro Group and Foxley & Pignanelli to tell them we don’t like how they do their business. We don’t like their clients, one of which is the Chamber of Commerce, because they support amnesty and common core which violate the platform. And we don’t like Overstock, the corporation that funded $50,000 to legalize same sex marriage in Utah. We want to tell them who their clients can or cannot be, and we want to use their name to do it.

These lobbyists want the Republican Party to stop its defense of out of self-interest. They fail to acknowledge that the Idaho Republican Party pressed forward to win for the voice of the people against the elite after losing its injunction.

The First Amendment and What Accountability Has to Do With It
This legal challenge is a serious constitutional First Amendment and trademark question: Does a private corporation have the right to freely assemble and choose its principles, membership, leadership and voting process, all in alignment with Article 4, guaranting the states and its people a republican form of government?

If so, then how does the party maintain its platform (its “articles of faith”) and what is the process of membership qualification, and once a member, what is the process of holding their feet to the fire, especially the candidates we vetted and elected.

Senator Todd Weiler and a few others are squirming right now because they know they are among the Republicans that vote with the Democrats half the time. And so, lies and legends are covering up the real issue: those that favor CMV/SB54 do so because they do not want to be held accountable.

And that’s the truth.

For more truth, go to Fair Elections Utah, compiled by one of our colleagues, Representative Fred Cox, with whom I serve on the State Central Committee.

Who’s Who in the Legislature: Utah’s Constitutional Republic Election System

American Leadership FundI’ve written several articles addressing the attack on Utah’s Constitutional Republic election system – called the “caucus convention.”

In 2014 the Utah Legislature voted to intervene in the affairs of a private corporation specifically to dictate to it how it will elect its corporate members and who they can be – similar to a corporate board.  Except, what the legislature said was that Macy’s no longer has the exclusive right to appoint or elect its leadership, its CEO and board and voting shareholders.  Instead Gimble’s now has the right to take over Macy’s and petition to manipulate a hostile takeover of Macy’s.

Put another way, should a state legislature have the right to intervene in the business affairs of another private corporation – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tell it – by law – how it can appoint or elect its Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and who will be the next President of that church?

Outrageous you say?

Well, that is what the Count My Vote campaign is asking and that is what Senator Curt Bramble and others who are catering to the elite in Utah have done.

Corporate law prohibits such interference from competition in this manner.  (Unless you are General Motors and President Obama.  You may recall how the president stripped franchise owners of their own private contracts.  In Utah those car dealership owners stood at a press conference and, some very tearfully having lost their entire life’s investment in one letter, rightfully described it as communism.)

This matter of a political party’s right to a caucus convention was also challenged in Idaho and was found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment protection to freely assemble.

Perhaps some of Utah’s legislators did not realize what they were doing at the time, but at this juncture they should be aware of the troubling circumstances they have complicated further.

In fact, it could be said that they acted in contempt of the very party that elected them.  And they continue to do so in this session.

Senator Curt Bramble is at the center of this conflict.  He was the sponsor of SB 54, promoted as the “fix.” He promised that it was “severable,” meaning a portion of the bill could be separated from the rest and dealt with.  However, members of the State Central Committee knew otherwise.  Read former legislator Chris Herrod’s expose here.

Now Senator Bramble tells the Republican Party it’s not severable.  In any other circumstance, this would either be incompetence or obfuscation.  In either case, Senator Bramble and those that followed him in support of SB 54 must be held accountable.

The elite of Utah are behind this attempt to destroy the Republican Party and to infringe on the rights of a private corporation so that they can not only elect their wealthy and famous friends, but also limit it to those that can afford the costly primaries that the media buyers otherwise miss out on with a caucus – convention.

The Republican Party has rightfully filed a lawsuit to defend its first amendment rights.  The Constitution Party has joined the lawsuit with identical concerns.  They should know.  Their party carries the namesake of the very law that is being torn to shreds by Utah Republicans the people elected to the state legislature.

They are also being lied to by local media, especially, but not limited to, Doug Wright.  He also should be held accountable.

Every business owner should be shuddering at the precedent the Utah legislature has created should SB 54 stand.  It means that independents (primarily progressives and Democrats that find it advantageous to run as “independent” or “non-partisan” so they can be elected in a predominantly Republican state) can enter a Republican primary and win it.

The Democrat Party should also be shaking in its boots.  In areas such as Salt Lake City, it would not take much for Republicans to run and take over precincts that the democrats hold by simply usurping the Democrat Party imprimatur.   It removes the same First Amendment rights from the Democrat Party as it does the Constitution, the Libertarian or the Republican Party.

The fundamental questions are:  does a private organization have a right to self-determination and definition?

Does a political party have the inherent and God-given right to declare its beliefs and who will represent them?

The answer is yes.

I am a member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee.  Senator Bramble and others who followed his lead were led down a dangerous path of brambles.  The following Republicans from the 2014 legislative session, knowingly – or otherwise deceived – have done serious harm to the Republican Party and to each of us who have been duly elected to represent its best interests.  We have spent countless hours and sacrifice from our families and work raising funds and defending the interests of the grassroots against an small elite group of people who wish to manipulate with their money or fame:

Utah Senators

Adams, J. S. Bramble, C. Christensen, A. Davis, G. Dayton, M.
Escamilla, L. Harper, W. Henderson, D. Hinkins, D. Jenkins, S.
Knudson, P. Mayne, K. Niederhauser, W. Okerlund, R. Osmond, A.
Stephenson, H. Thatcher, D. Urquhart, S. Valentine, J. Van Tassell, K.
Vickers, E. Weiler, T.

Utah House of Representatives

Anderson, Jerry Arent, P. Bird, J. Brown, M. Chavez-Houck, R.
Christensen, L. Cosgrove, T. Dee, B. Draxler, J. Duckworth, S.
Dunnigan, J. Edwards, R. Eliason, S. Fisher, Janice Froerer, G.
Greenwood, R. Hall, C. Handy, S. Hemingway, L. Hughes, G.
Ipson, D. King, B. S. Last, B. Layton, D. Lifferth, D.
Lockhart, R. McCay, D. McIff, K. McKell, M. Menlove, R.
Moss, C. Nelson, M. Nielson, J. Peterson, J. Peterson, V.
Poulson, M. Powell, K. Romero, A. Sagers, D. Sanpei, D.
Seelig, J. Snow, V. L. Spendlove, R. Stratton, K. Tanner, E.
Webb, R. C. Westwood, J. Wiley, L. Wilson, B

In the 2015 session, the following Republicans were true to the oath they swore to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Utah.  Most of them became aware of the constitutional matter which had not been presented to them in 2014 and they voted for a bill that would have helped the Republican Party, SB 43 and they deserve our thanks.  This is actually representative of a core group of Utah Senators that primarily vote with a constitutional compass.

Christensen, A. Dayton, M. Henderson, D. Jackson, A. Jenkins, S.
Madsen, M. Millner, A. Stephenson, H. Thatcher, D.

The following Republicans, although they have voted constitutionally on other measures,  have acted in this instance to harm the Republican Party and the interests of the people against the elite.  Perhaps some of them simply trusted their leaders or were pressured to do so?

Adams, J. S. Bramble, C. Dabakis, J. Davis, G. Escamilla, L.
Harper, W. Hillyard, L. Iwamoto, J. Knudson, P. Mayne, K.
Niederhauser, W. Okerlund, R. Osmond, A. Shiozawa, B. Stevenson, J.
Urquhart, S. Van Tassell, K. Vickers, E. Weiler, T.

Congratulations to Chris Herrod and Craig Frank and their www.UnConventionConservative.com blog site, and others who have worked very hard to get the truth to Senator Bramble’s colleagues and for their integrity in stopping SB 254, the SB 54 highway that circled around CMV City in this 2015 session.  Here are the Senators that voted to HOLD the bill in committee.  We appreciate them for their diligence.

Dayton, M.
Hillyard, L.
Hinkins, D.
Jackson, A.
Thatcher, D.

Here are some talking points in favor of the caucus system and why so many of the grassroots that understand its benefits are concerned about:

Many have asked about the specific objections the Party has to SB 54 (the Utah Legislature/Count My Vote compromise). Please see eight major objections below – (for the sake of brevity, preserving our constitutional rights is a given):

1)     The SB 54 compromise allows candidates who are not Republicans to run on the ballot as Republicans.

2)     It allows a candidate to be on the Republican primary ballot without having to get one Republican signature.

3)     It allows someone to win a Republican primary with as little as 10 percent of the vote, because there is no majority vote requirement.

4)     It forces the Utah Republican Party to have all 29 county conventions in a two week period

5)     It does not allow the Republican Party to ensure that candidates running on the Republican primary ballot even acknowledge that they support the Republican Party’s platform.

6)     Count My Vote has never been about increasing voter participation. It has always been about finding another and easier way to gain access to the Republican Party brand, and they are using the appeal of increasing voter participation as the rallying cry to do it.

7)     We have one state convention in 2015 to make all the required changes to comply with the aggressive 2016 timeline.

8)     If we can’t comply with the SB 54 requirements in time, Republicans may not be on the ballot in 2016.

We need your support today to continue in this fight.  Please consider a donation of whatever amount you are able – $10. $25, $50, $100 or more – a monthly donation is also welcome.  Simply text “ALF” to 313131 or


Utah’s “Man on the Street” – An Interview with Low Information CMV Petitioner

Watch a video of an undercover interview with a random “Count My Vote petitioner. It will either make you laugh hysterically or make your blood curdle.

Also: How to Remove Your Name from the CMV “Count My Vote” Petition

While a senior in high school, my daughter interned for Sean Hannity at WABC New York City. She frequently went down on the street in front of the Penn Plaza building and assisted with the Man on the Street segment. Sean gave her the opportunity of a lifetime to actually do the interview – the youngest intern ever.

That segment was usually hysterically funny, but always alarming. It highlighted not just the low information voter, but the completely ignorant voter (meaning the voter that “ignores” information).

Here is a Utah example, one of many petitioners hired by the lobbyists and elitist donors backing the “CMV” Count My Vote petition drive to get rid of the neighborhood grassroots voices and voters. This petition actually does exactly the opposite this uninformed petitioner declares it does. It turns all power over to the rich and famous, the lobbyists and the incumbents and career politicians they love to buy with media sound bites while they get rich off those media buys.

If you know anything about Utah’s neighborhood caucus, you will have a good laugh with this video. Pass it along.

Poor Charity. She should be grateful her last name and that of her friends were bleeped.

But you will also be very alarmed that the “man on the street” survives in Utah. It doesn’t say much for Utah’s education system, which is really not Utah’s system at all but the top-down, dumbed-down system Washington lobbyists and unions have given us and through which they benefit.

Charity is the perfect example of precisely the “low-information” brand of voter that has graduated from that system and is now a brainful of mush in the hands of the politically correct on a local college campus near you. (This preceded “common core” by the way.)

Tragically, Utah will be opening up its election process to this brand of voter if the Count My Vote (“Buy My Vote”) petition campaign gets enough signatures.

If you don’t know much about Utah’s neighborhood caucus, and you’ve been deceived into thinking it’s taking away your voice, think again.

If you signed one of those nasty CMV petitions, and after watching this video of an unbelievably off-the-mark conversation between this unfortunate petitioner and a very savvy interviewer who had the wherewithal to record the conversation, you now realize you have made a BIG mistake (and you HAVE), no worries.

You do have a way to remove your name from that petition, and you have until May 15th to do it.

Please watch this video, understand what this petition is about at the Protect Our Neighborhood Elections website, and get the information TODAY – while you can – for how to remove your name.

If you don’t know much about Utah’s neighborhood caucus system, but are now curious and want to know more and upgrade your status from low-information to medium-information voter, here’s the video that explains it.

For promotion to high-information voter status, please attend your neighborhood caucus on Thursday, March 20, 2014 at 7 PM. You can find your location here.

Also, please pass this information along and tell everyone while there’s still time: