Orrin Hatch

Discuss principles, issues and candidates for the 2006 and previous elections.

Orrin Hatch

Postby lundbaek » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:47 am

I hope it's acceptable to initiate a thread about Senator Orrin Hatch. I think Utah LDS voters need to learn the extent to which Senator Hatch has trashed the US Constitution, and at the same time understand their responsibility to seek out and support candidates who will support and uphold the Constitution. The following article I think tells a lot about Senator Hatch.
Liberal in Conservative Garb by John F. McManus, 9 October 2000 issue of The New American

"Although Utah Senator Orrin Hatch wears a cloak of conservatism, his true colors are shown when he consistently undermines the Constitution by championing liberal causes.
"On May 6, 2000, the Utah Republican Party held its convention to nominate candidates for statewide and local offices. The gathering turned out to be anything but the usual political lovefest. Four-term Senator Orrin Hatch, thought by most outsiders to be the darling of Utah's GOPers, found himself greeted by a loud chorus of heckling from many among the 3,500 delegates and 1,500 observers. Governor Mike Leavitt, similarly viewed as a GOP favorite, fared even worse. Jeering directed at him became so loud that neither he nor the individuals nominating him could be heard. The convention ultimately denied Leavitt renomination, thereby forcing him into a primary (which he eventually won). Hatch narrowly escaped the same fate.
"The distaste for Hatch focused on what many Utah residents see as his capitulation on abortion, gun ownership, and homosexuality. As they arrived at the convention, delegates were handed a letter documenting Hatch's softness on the all-important right-to-life issue. Some delegates were angered over his refusal to sign a pledge to veto judicial candidates who aren't opposed to abortion. Upset supporters of the right to own a gun claimed that the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America had correctly blasted him for supporting several measures targeting private ownership of weapons, including a ban on an assortment of weapons in a huge crime bill, controls on sales at gun shows, and enforcement of trigger locks. Others recalled that, in 1990, the American Family Association publicly criticized Hatch for supporting the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and its "funding of pornography and anti-Christian art."
"Early Years
Orrin Hatch was born in 1934 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Educated at Utah's Brigham Young University and the University of Pittsburgh Law School, he practiced law in Pennsylvania for several years and then settled in the Beehive State.
"In 1976, in his first try at elective office, he upset three-term incumbent Democrat Frank Moss and went to Washington as a U.S. senator. From the very start, he promised to stand tall for conservative principles, a balanced federal budget, strong national defense, strong family values, and relief from the growing inroads of taxation and regulation.
While his early record lived up to many of his promises, there were signs even during his first years in office that the labels Hatch delighted in wearing didn't match his performance. One of his first votes in the Senate came when newly inaugurated President Carter submitted the name of radical civil rights agitator Andrew Young for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. During confirmation hearings, senators were reminded of Young's undeniable leftist record, including his incredible televised statement of April 13, 1970 that "it may take the destruction of western civilization to allow the rest of the world to really emerge as a free and brotherly society...." Hatch, nevertheless, voted for confirmation.
"What About the Constitution?
Hatch has always enjoyed being termed a "conservative," an increasingly meaningless categorization of politicians and their policies. But the standard by which elected officials and issues should be judged has never been unspecified conservatism. The standard for Americans, especially those honor bound to abide by its tenets, is the U.S. Constitution.
Nowhere in the venerable document, however, is there any authorization for such Hatch-supported federal programs as housing, education, welfare, agriculture subsidies, foreign aid, oil price controls, subsidized sales to Communist countries, needles for drug addicts, funding of pornographic art, federalization of local police, subsidies for unwed teenage mothers, loans for college students, television for rural residents, and day-care centers. Asked about these and similar programs, Hatch mentions his "sympathy for the downtrodden, those who get the short end of the stick."
"In 1985, a Senate bill cited the section of the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) that authorizes Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — and, by extension, all federal courts — on any particular matter. A group of senators referenced this clause while attempting to bar all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from having anything to say about prayer in the schools. Successful passage of their proposal in the full Congress would have restored voluntary prayer and Bible reading. Orrin Hatch would like to be known as a supporter of such practices, but he joined with the majority in a 62 to 36 vote that killed the measure. Then in 1988, during a similar attempt citing the same constitutional authority, Hatch actually made the motion that successfully torpedoed the effort.
An Internationalist
"In 1986, Hatch backed the sanctions levied against U.S.-friendly South Africa. Those sanctions were a significant factor in the replacement of the government with the Marxist-Communist cadre that now controls South Africa. Move ahead a few years and consider Communist China's abominable human rights record that features forced abortion, a one child per family requirement, slave labor, religious persecution, and more. Add to this mix the Chinese government's labeling of the United States as its "number one enemy." With China an even worse abuser of human rights than South Africa was, and a sworn enemy of the U.S. besides, one might think that Orrin Hatch would be a stout-hearted opponent of pro-Chinese measures.
"But Hatch supported Most Favored Nation status for the Beijing monsters as far back as 1980, and he did so again in 1991, 1992, 1994, and 1997. In 1999, he crowned such support by siding with President Clinton's wish for China to receive U.S.-taxpayer subsidized trade under the new designation termed Normal Trade Relations.
"The Gulf War is another example of Hatch's internationalism. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war. In 1991 with congressional acquiescence, President George Bush performed an end run around the Constitution by pointing to authorization from the United Nations as he launched a war against Iraq. The major purposes behind this intervention, he proudly stated, were the building of "a reinvigorated United Nations" and the creation of "a new world order." A few days before unleashing the troops, Mr. Bush asked Congress, not for a declaration of war, but for its approval of his decision to use our nation's military to implement UN resolutions. Fifty-two senators supported the President's request to circumvent the Constitution while 47 refused. Hatch was one of the ignominious 52.
"In November 1993, President Clinton and Congress approved the largest transfer of U.S. sovereignty to an international agency since our nation joined the United Nations. By a vote of 61 to 38, the Senate approved NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. History shows that economic union (which is what NAFTA entails) is regularly followed by political union. And political union is a necessary step toward full world government. Hatch voted with the majority on this sovereignty-compromising measure.
"A UN population conference meeting in Cairo in 1994 strongly advocated abortion and, for it, received wide condemnation from religious and family organizations in the United States. Yet, right on the heels of the Cairo gathering, Hatch and fellow Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) praised the UN for its Year of the Family proclamation and for the organization's overall "leadership" and efforts to "reconfirm the importance of the family."
"With the Iraq precedent to back him up, President Clinton later committed U.S. military forces to a NATO/UN-directed war in the former Yugoslavia. On July 30, 1998, the Senate entertained a one-sentence amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill seeking to reaffirm the sole war-making power granted to Congress. The measure sought to prohibit the use of the military's funds for "offensive military operations by the United States except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to declare war and take certain other related actions." The Senate tabled (killed) this easily understood amendment by a vote of 84 to 15. Hatch voted with the majority.
"On May 25, 1999, the Senate considered an amendment to deny funds for the use of combat troops in an invasion of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. The intent, once again, was to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which grants to Congress alone the power to declare war. But the amendment was tabled (killed) by a vote of 52 to 48, with Hatch voting with the majority. The very next day, the Senate considered a separate bill seeking to have the U.S. pull all our forces out of the former Yugoslavia by October 1, 1999. It was tabled (killed) by a vote of 77 to 21, with Hatch once again joining the interventionist majority.
Even the Press Begins to Wonder
"Orrin Hatch's deviations from his professed "conservatism" haven't gone unnoticed even by a generally favorable media. While making light of his turn to the left, Utah's Deseret News asked on March 26, 1989 how it could be that Utah's then-Representative Howard Nielson could urge fellow Republicans at a state convention to protest Hatch's support for federal child care. Reporter Lee Davidson also noted that 125 House members had also attacked Hatch for compromising with Democrats on that very issue.
"In its March 2, 1990 edition, the New York Times featured a lengthy article bearing the telling title "Orrin Hatch's Journey: Strict Conservative To Compromise Seeker." Reporter Neil Lewis focused on Hatch's political alliance and friendship with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), whose liberalism is legendary. Lewis quoted one Washington analyst as claiming that the unstated reason behind Hatch's support for so many liberal measures stems from "a cynical calculation to buy off opponents in the Senate" who might later be counted on to back "his burning desire to be on the Supreme Court." To all of the criticism he has received, Hatch replies that he has "matured" and is "seeking to have an effect on legislation through compromise."
"In 1993, Hatch angered Massachusetts Republicans when he told the Deseret News that he wouldn't consider campaigning against Ted Kennedy's re-election. Said Hatch: "There's just too much of a personal friendship there.... I care a great deal for Ted Kennedy. He's like a brother to me."
"That brotherly relationship extends to politics to a much greater extent than most conservatives recognize. As Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times noted in his May 8, 1997 article, when Kennedy and Hatch team up they "produce solutions to real problems, whether the issue is AIDS, child care, summer jobs or crime." Their "solutions," of course, are not ones that any true conservative or constitutionalist would support.
Role on the Judiciary Committee
"In 1992, Hatch gave up his leadership of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee to become the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. While in that post, he supported Bill Clinton's selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. He termed the choice of this veteran federal appeals court judge, who is pro-abortion and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, "good news for Republicans." He also predicted that this jurist would be "unlikely to be a liberal judicial activist." But her performance on the court has been as liberal as could be imagined.
"By 1994, Hatch urged President Clinton to appoint another federal appeals court judge, Stephen Breyer, to the high court. Hatch said he told the President "he couldn't go wrong" by selecting Breyer, whom Hatch described as "more moderate" than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his previously lauded selection for the Supreme Court. Mr. Clinton nominated Breyer, and his nomination was easily confirmed by the Senate. Breyer, like Ginsburg, is pro-abortion and a member of the CFR.
"In August 2000, Thomas L. Jipping of Washington's Free Congress Foundation issued a comprehensive report showing that Democrats are far more effective at backing judicial activists than Republicans are at backing judicially restrained justices. He indicted Republicans for "an accommodating approach that that virtually assured this result."
Jipping was especially critical of Orrin Hatch who, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee since 1995, has:
• refused to implement any of the confirmation process reforms for federal judgeships approved by his own party in 1997;
• altered his commitment to "weed out" judicial activist nominees and replaced it with simply asking for verbal guarantees that nominees will behave;
• ignored the recommendations of a Senate task force he appointed to advise him on handling controversial nominations; and
• amassed a record shared by only 12 other Republican senators of never having voted against a single Clinton nominee during the 105th Congress (1997-98).
Of course, this willingness to support Clinton nominees for the federal courts could be partially explained by his none-too-guarded desire to sit on the Supreme Court himself someday. Perhaps he hopes liberal Democrats will recall his support of their choices for the bench and return the favor. But if that were to happen, don't expect Hatch to uphold traditional values or sound constitutional principles. As he told a University of Utah audience in 1992, he "wouldn't even touch" the Roe v. Wade decision that has led to the killing of over 40 million innocent victims in the womb."
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Orrin Hatch

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Postby 79scholar » Tue May 16, 2006 10:45 am

Clearly looks like a true blue RINO (Republican in Name Only).

Nevertheless, if he is honest and seeking to benefit the people ... if he will feed the sheep and not themselves (a rarity among politicians) ... then that is who receives my vote.
79scholar
captain of 100
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 6:04 pm

Picking on Hatch again

Postby lundbaek » Tue May 16, 2006 3:17 pm

I am grateful to The New American magazine, published by the John Birch Society, for its semi-annual "Conservative Index", which shows how every member of the House and Senate voted on key issues. It is found on line at http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/ci/index.htm

The Conservative Index rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty, and to a traditonal policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The average House score is a lousy 30%, and the average Senate score is worse, at about 21%. Over the past year, Senator Hatch has been batting 50%, over the past 6 months only 10%, which is pretty poor for a senator who is not only sworn to uphold the Constitution, but also obligated by his Church affiliation to do the same. In all fariness, Senator Reid of Nevada is much worse at 10%, and of course what can we expect from Kennedy and Kerry of MA.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby 79scholar » Tue May 16, 2006 4:48 pm

LOL! If we go by this Conservative Index ...

Bush on the constitution: "it's just a g**-damned piece of paper!"
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7779.shtml

... and then we know how Bush stands on limited government, fiscal responsibility, and avoiding foreign entanglements ...


It's quite a wonder how this neo-conservative got in disguised as a conservative, and then again fool the masses in 2004 via the Christian Coalition and an illusioned "War on Terror." I believe the only way for America to awaken from it's state of ignorant barbarism is to see what really happened on 9/11, see what is happening to the middle-class, and what is happening to the constitution. The mass media is clearly and purposely keeping the people in ignorance, much like early Catholicism. The free press has become an oligarchal press.


Back to the original topic ... unless a candidate discloses what he stands for and what he believes and his fruits/actions show it, I won't vote for him - being a clear sign of dishonesty and a typical politician.
79scholar
captain of 100
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 6:04 pm

Postby Swmorgan77 » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:29 pm

I received a suprisingly customized letter from Senator Hatch in response to my concerns about the Presidential abuses of the Constitution which I cited specifically and extensively in my original email.

It was ultimately a source of dismay, however, since Senator Hatch simply ignored all of the citations I gave by saying "I believe in the way the President is using signing statements".

In the context of my original email this is very disturbing since I cited specifically the President's use of a signing statement to declare his intent to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act II which HAD BEEN REMOVED from the legislation. This amounts to nothing less than dictatorship, and in Senator Hatch's own words... he believes in it.
Swmorgan77
captain of 100
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Arrogance of Hatch

Postby lundbaek » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:31 pm

I guess Senator Hatch can afford to be as arrogant as he revealed himself to be in his reply to you, since he seems to have the Utah voters just about eating out of his hand.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby lundbaek » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:22 pm

I think Utah LDS voters need to somehow learn the extent to which Senator Hatch has trashed the US Constitution, and at the same time understand their responsibility to seek out and support candidates who will support and uphold the Constitution.

This evening I fell into conversation with some Latter Day Saints in SLC who think Senator Hatch is just great. Since being in SLC for a month now, I have become more acutely aware of the large number of Latter Day Saints who have allowed themselves to become infatuated with Hatch and other Republican politicians.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with voters supporting those political figures that are willing to faithfully discharge their duties to protect and defend the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and codified in the U.S. Constitution. However, instead of faithfully championing constitutional principles, far too many conservative LDSs have become little more than political pawns for Republican politicians.

Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."

Instead of standing by our country's constitution and historic principles, most LDSs seem to have chosen to stand by the politician-no matter what. However, what most LDSs have yet to learn is that nearly all politicians do not share the same spirit of loyalty, either to our constitutional principles or to us.

The following is a brief review of the unconstitutional voting record of a Latter Day Saint Senator, Orrin Hatch. I hope you will share this with other Utah voters, especially with those who should be aware of our obligation to support and sustain the U.S. Constitution. It was sent to me by Cami Olsen of SLC.


SOVEREIGNTY: Contrary to explicit Constitutional requirements ( Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 ), Senator Hatch has been a strong advocate of the establishment of international bodies, and unconstitutionally delegating to them regulation of commerce that the United States conducts with foreign nations. These efforts include support for NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc.

EDUCATION: In spite of the fact that o authority is delegated to the national government by the Constitution to meddle in the field of education, Senator Hatch has supported unconstitutional (see Amendments 9 & 10 ) federal educational legislation such as “Goals 2000" and “No Child Left Behind”, which dramatically infringes upon the authority of the state and local governments to establish local educational needs and standards.

WAR: The U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 clause 11 requires the only Congress has the authority to take the nation into war. Again, ignoring the Constitution, Senator Hatch on numerous occasions has: supported the involvement of the United States military in wars that have not been constitutionally declared, and unconstitutionally voted to delegate authority to the President to go to war, and used the United Anations Resolutions and authority as justification for such unauthorized military action (See Iraq War Resolution, 10 October 2002 )

EROSION OF LIBERTY: While claiming to be a “conservative Constitutionalist”, and having “privileged” information that is not available to most Americans, Senator Hatch has consistently proceeded to vote away God-given, constitutionally protected liberties because of his perception of necessity - supporting the so-called USA PATRIOT ACT, which eviscerates the 4th Amendment and puts at risk many other cherished safeguards of American liberty.

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: Senator Hatch has not actively used the full power of his office to prevent the erosion of the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) ignoring the true purpose of this amendment, which is to protect the God-given right of Americans to protect themselves, their lives, their loved ones, and their property against all criminals - foreigh and domestic.

CONSTITUTION CONVENTION: Senator Hatch is one of the primary promoters of a call for a national constitutional convention, an act that would result if the loss of our current Constitution.

STEM CELL RESEARCH: In July 2006, Senator Hatch sponsored a bill that would have committed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; this in spite of a complete lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to grant funds for any such purposes.

SUPREME COURT NOMINEES: Whilechair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, Hatch brought the names of both Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Bryer to them President Bill Clinton as suggested nominees to the United States Supreme Court, and which, after their nomination by Clinton, Senator Hatch used all of his official power to assure that they would be seated on the Supreme Court - this in spite of theirknown perverse perspectives in regards to the written Constitution and the limits of opower placed upon the national government by the U.S. Constitution.

CRIME BILLS: Throughout his 30 years in the Senate, Hatch has sponsored and promoted multiple”crime bills” designating certain crimes as “federal crimes” - crimes which are clearly beyond the scope of power granted to the national government within the Constitution, including the crimes of rape and domestic violence (see 1994 Violence Against Women Act). This legislation dramatically increases federal police powers into areas reserved to the states (see Amendments 9 & 10 )

HATE CRIMES: Senator hatch has sponsored federal “hate crimes” legislation in violation of constitutional limits placed upon federal authority over crime, and the constitutional reservation of authority over domestic crimes to the states. (See Amendments 9 & 10 )

SENATE BILL 8: On January 21, 1993, Hatch introduced “Senate Bill 8", a federal crimes bill which, in violation of the 5th Amendment, would have allowed the “taking” of private property from individuals upon being accused of a crime, as well as dramatic expansion of federal crimes jurisdiction.

CHILD CARE: Hatch has promoted federal “child care” legislation in violation of constitutional authority (see Amendment 9 & 10 )

HEALTH CARE: Hatch has promoted and supported national “Health Care” legislation in various forms that again is in violation of constitutional authority ( see Amendments 9 & 10 )

NATIONAL ENDOWMENTS OF THE ARTS (NEA): During his tenure in the Senate, Hatch has cast multiple votes in favour of funding the NEA - an unconstitutional grant of monies from the national treasure to a foundation which has been used to promote obscene and denigrating material. No authority is granted within the U.S. Constitution for such expenditures.

Please feel free to copy and forward these posts as you see fit.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby cboyack » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Anybody seen the new Orrin Hatch billboards? I've gone to the liberty of designing my own. Much better, imho.
http://connorboyack.com

"In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischeif by the chains of the Constitution" —Thomas Jefferson
cboyack
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:43 am

Postby Tribunal » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:27 pm

I'll try to refrain from venting every detail of frustration I've had with Utah politicians. I've been heavily involved with the Republican Party here in Utah for years and I've been to every state and Utah county convention and meeting since 2001. Utah politicians are in no way conservative. Utah politicians in no way properly promote or even attempt to protect the Constitution of the United States.

Just when the people here in Utah get to the point of finally doing away with a bad politician good'ol Bush and his wife call all of the Mormon Sheeple and convince them to stick with the same old......

Nuff said!
Tribunal
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 pm

The Problem

Postby lundbaek » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:01 pm

The problem with Senator Hatch is not just Orrin Hatch. Much of the problem is the voters, and I single out the LDS voters especially because they should know better than all the others.

Most do not realize that the Lord "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men" whom He "raised up unto this very purpose." Consequently they look to the charismatic and often unscrupulous mortals to govern them.

Most do not realize that they are under obligation "to befriend the constitutional law of the land." Consequently they have not studied the Constitution, its principles, and its history.

Most do not realize that the Lord asked that "those principles which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever." And they do not realize that "those principles" have been compromised, beginning even shortly after the Constitution was ratified. and at an increasing pace ever since.

Most do not realize that God "holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them (governments), both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society." Consequently they look to government to serve their immediate interests, regardless of whether or not the laws and their administration are in compliance with the US Constitution.

Even if LDSs studied the US Constitution and its principles as diligently and faithfully as they read the Book of Mormon last year at the request of the Prophet, there would still be disagreements over what certain parts of it mean. My favourite example of that is the disagreement between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton on the meaning of "general welfare" in the Preamble of the Constitution, and Hamilton's redical change of opinion on the matter. Examples of disagreements of, I believe, lesser importance are those we find on this forum.

Decades ago certain General Authorities tried to give us guidance on some of the potentially controversial issues in the Constitution. They were generally ignored. It seems that guidance on that subject has been shut off for now, at least.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby Tribunal » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:54 pm

Where can someone go to find the differences of opinion the Founding Fathers had with the Constitution? That would be interesting reading!
Tribunal
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 pm

Postby lundbaek » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:54 am

Trib, I'd turn first to "The Making of America" by W. Cleon Skousen. The DVD "A More Perfect Union" would be next. I believe the biggest disagreement requiring the greatest compromise was over the slavery issue.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby Col. Flagg » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:05 pm

Unfortunately, Senator Hatch has been bought off and has sold out just like most of the other politicians in DC. I submitted an e-mail to him through his website asking him if he was aware of the North American Union plan and if he was, why it hasn't been disclosed to the American people yet, what he was doing to prevent it from coming to fruition and what his position or stance was on the whole agenda. Well, to my surprise, not only is he aware of it, he stated that he supports the plan 100%. In a follow-up letter that I wrote in which I reiterated some of the key issues and questions I had in my original letter that he failed to address, such as the creation of a new currency and the NAFTA super-highway, he denied any truth to it at all, which is why he says the mainstream media hasn't disclosed any of it to the public. So, in one letter, he says he fully supports bringing the U.S., Canada and Mexicio together, then in another, denies any truth to the plan. How odd that I would get contradictory letters, but it wasn't odd to behold the deception and secrecy.

For those unfamiliar with what I am talking about, just visit http://www.spp.gov or do a Google search on "North American Union" or "SPP", which stands for "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America".

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/262006f.asp

Joseph Smith wasn't kidding when he said the constitution would some day hang by a thread. It's hanging and the Elders of Zion are going to have to step forward and save it from utter destruction at some point.
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 14307
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:04 pm
Location: Utah County

Postby lundbaek » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:21 pm

We've got about another week to get some flyers promoting Constitution Party candidates and distribute them door to door or however we can. I fgot mine from a personal acquaintance, but they are available, I should hope, by going to http://www.cputah.org and asking for help getting them.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Postby SwissMrs&Pitchfire » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:35 pm

CNN is projecting Hatch the winner with 0% reporting and like 340 votes counted! You know your people are sheeple when...CNN can safely project your candidate a winner as long as he has the majority of 0%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages ... index.html
"The rich can only get them (keys, signs, words, etc...) in the temple, the poor may get them on the mountaintop as did Moses." Joseph Smith HC 4:608
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 5946
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Driven

Postby SwissMrs&Pitchfire » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:37 pm

Now Hatch has 40% and Ashdown has 55% of that 0% but Hatch is still projected as the winner.

When will Utah ever learn? When will CNN ever learn? Hopefully tonight!
"The rich can only get them (keys, signs, words, etc...) in the temple, the poor may get them on the mountaintop as did Moses." Joseph Smith HC 4:608
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 5946
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Driven

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby DrJones » Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:53 am

Much appreciated insights by Lundbaek and others above.

This morning on channel 4 news, O. Hatch was there giving an interview. He was talking about problems with the caucus system in Utah, for the primary -- and how he was concerned that "libertarians" were having an inordinate influence using this system. (e.g., Sen. Bennett knocked out of the race 2 years ago.)

O. Hatch said that Libertarians are trying to taking over the Republican party! imagine that.
He went on to say emphatically that he will not allow Libertarians or any other "fringe group" (his term) to take over the Republican party.

Gosh, I consider that rather a challenge.
;)
"Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."
DrJones
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Location: ??

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby bobhenstra » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:07 am

Steve, the libertarians have failed as a party, so they're trying to take over the republican party? Two years ago another group tried to take the party over, the T party, a much larger grassroots organization then the libertarian party presently is, they/we failed! We're barely worth a mention now!

The worlds best known libertarian Ron Paul is getting 10 percent of the vote in primaries and caucuses this year, he has less than one percent of the delegates, the T party did much much better, a big splash that didn't last! Do you seriously believe the libertarians can succeed since the T party has now failed?

I was part of the vote that ousted Bennett, I'm not sure I'll make it to caucus this year, but I Providence is with me I will, and I'll vote to excuse Senator Hatch, but not to replace him with a libertarian wearing a conservative mask. Open drug laws, free sex and gay marriage isn't what I'm into, fighting those abhorrent behaviors is, and I'll vote against anyone who is.

I'm not into wasting my vote, and in my opinion knowingly voting for someone who cannot win is a wasted vote, essentially nothing more than a feel good vote, why bother wasting my time?

I had such high hopes for the T party------

Bob
Every Prophet I quote, everything I write is my opinion.

Joseph Smith Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him
bobhenstra
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 6849
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:18 am
Location: Central Utah

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby AGStacker » Fri May 04, 2012 7:54 pm

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

John Quincy Adams

Bob, although we don't vote on who is going to be the prophet we certainly do sustain him. I think it is the same thing. Sustaining or voting for the prophet is not a lost cause. I will always vote on principle.

Ron Paul was most definitely the father of the Tea Party and he currently is the father of the intellectual revolution that is occurring. I think you misunderstand him. He doesn't desire that sex, drugs and gay marriage be rampant rather he sees that people have the rights to make their own decisions. Ultimately, why would someone want to partake in drugs or sexual promiscuity? We know neither of those things make people happy. An intelligent being would NEVER do something to displease him or another. The wicked, their sins reflect upon them. Ron Paul just recognizes that the government trying to control sex and drugs is wrong and they have no authority under the Constitution to do so anyways. As far as gay marriage goes, Ron Paul of course doesn't support it but realizes that the state has no right dictating religious matters.

For example, how many people realize how stupid it is that states issue marriage licenses? Well, what if one day they don't want to issue marriage licenses. Does that mean I can't be married because the state says so? In regards to marriage, the Church, IMO, should side step the whole act of government marriage and allow people to be sealed without a license issued by some usurper. Limited government, which only means less force, is the best.

I would give absolutely anything to be born in the late forties of fifties. Better times with happier, more loving people and less government.
AGStacker
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:46 pm

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby bobhenstra » Fri May 04, 2012 8:22 pm

I'm voting to give "our" Prophet a chance to help, Ron Paul isn't a prophet, he's a libertarian! Paul will vote with the dems when it comes to same sex marriage, he'll vote with the dems to allow free drug use, he'll flat out vote with the dems! I don't trust him. Correct principal tells me; With Mitt I at least have the chance to expect him to consult with higher priesthood authority, Ron Paul has zero chance.

I'll not waste my vote on "zero" chance!

Bob
Every Prophet I quote, everything I write is my opinion.

Joseph Smith Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him
bobhenstra
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 6849
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:18 am
Location: Central Utah

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby karend77 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:21 pm

bobhenstra wrote:I'm voting to give "our" Prophet a chance to help, Ron Paul isn't a prophet, he's a libertarian! Paul will vote with the dems when it comes to same sex marriage, he'll vote with the dems to allow free drug use, he'll flat out vote with the dems! I don't trust him. Correct principal tells me; With Mitt I at least have the chance to expect him to consult with higher priesthood authority, Ron Paul has zero chance.

I'll not waste my vote on "zero" chance!

Bob



Ok, and this has to with with this Orrin Hatch thread how? Dan Liljenquist is running against Hatch and is the better choice. As for Mitt, I hope you are right, I pray so.
karend77
captain of 100
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:50 am

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby theblazingtruth » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:33 pm

LDS Church is politically neutral that means Mormons should not vote
theblazingtruth
captain of 10
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:06 am

Re: Orrin Hatch

Postby lundbaek » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:47 pm

I am finding many politically astute Mormon Republicans who are very angry at the Republican Party for its treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters and delegates and for its increasing deviation from constitutional principles.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona


Return to 2006 and Previous Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests