Okay South Jordan... I told you so! Dave Alvord is not good for South Jordan!

I would like to remind of you a couple of posts from the past:

http://itsacurmudgeonslife.blogspot.com/2013/09/david-alvord-is-bad-for-south-jordan.html

and this one:

http://itsacurmudgeonslife.blogspot.com/2013/10/sexism-just-another-reason-david-alvord.html

A couple of things to note.  

• Neither Federal or State tax dollars are spent on abortive services.  Let's acknowledge this.  
• This letter goes out on the heels of Herbert's ill advised order to defund Planned Parenthood.
• The letter is not good public policy nor does it represent one of the most educated voter bases in the State of Utah.  It is grandstanding.  
• This is a veiled attack on Planned Parenthood.  It is very clear.  Even the comments on the Facebook post make it clear his actions and the actions of the South Jordan City Council are not represented of either fact or the majority of its constituents.
• It is heartening to see the number of citizens who not only oppose this policy but are taking the mayor to task over it.

He also makes the claim that the city should be interested in abortion because it is a matter of public safety.

Really?

The same David Alvord who refused to participate in a public safety program to install An Automated External Defibrillator (AED) in his dental office. Even though this public safety program, which he was required to participate in by law, would potentially save a life.  Oh wait... we are only interested in potential life.  He has one in his office now.  Do you know why?  Because it was donated by the Fire Department.

David Alvord, now, wants to stand guard at every woman's vagina to make sure they don't show their own autonomy.  He wants to put money toward something that has been legal since before he was born.  He indicates, later, that he wants to address legal abortion because every has unintended consequences.  That unintended consequence is autonomy.  A woman does not need the approval of a man to enjoy sex and to choose when and if she wants to be a mother.  The unintended consequence of his refusal to put an AED in his office might be... the death of someone he could really have saved

He says he feels this is a way to directly influence something he has little influence on.  This is misguided at best and represents the misogyny so prevalent in South Jordan. If he wants to reduce abortions he should support comprehensive sex education in schools.  He should support ready availability of birth control to all of his citizens. He should support STD testing.  All of those have been shown to reduce abortions. All of those services are 97% of what Planned Parenthood does.  The rest of what they do is paid for by private donations.  They are paid for by those who support a woman's right to choose.  

He doesn't though.  This policy is not about what is effective it is about his next election and imposing his religious world view on everyone he comes into contact with.  The city council is complicit and guilty as well.  They are sending the wrong message.  It is a message that one of the most affluent cities in the state is determined to hold women as property.  If she has sex that is non-procreative she will suffer for it. She should suffer for it!  Why?  Because god said.  

David Alvord has a history of misogyny and sexism.  I have documented that above but let me help you out with this screen shot:

 And then he thought this was funny.  You know in the same way a high school kid quotes lyrics to make is point... out of context.

The City of South Jordan can directly effect good public policy.  As I suggested above that is by petitioning the legislature to approve fact based, science supported, comprehensive sex education.  It can work with Planned Parenthood to reduce the number of abortions through a sex positive information based program.  Instead David Alvord is a the lead of misinformation campaign in the city.  The facts escape him.  In fact he admits he is ignorant to the facts.  Does that stop him?  No! Facts have never swayed him.  I'll say it again!  David Alvord is wrong for South Jordan. 

If you want to make your voice on the matter heard... Planned Parenthood is holding a rally on August 25th!  Here is the link: 

Stand with Planned Parenthood 

You may have been born that way... but it was your choice!

I recently posted this article on Facebook: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/a-nun-brilliantly-exposed-pro-life-hypocrites-with-this-hard-hitting-quote/> It is an article in which a nun calls out the conservatives in this country with this quote:

"I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-
birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

 Now the article is clearly about the way we treat children who are poor and disadvantaged once they are born. The article is not about abortion. The conservatives in my feed couldn't help but make it about that.  You can read the entire thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/kqdudley/posts/10207627350105610?comment_id=10207659129900085&notif_t=feed_comment_reply 

David, a 20 something white Mormon male who lives in Provo, UT, entered into the discussion. What caught my attention was his application of Mormon theology.  I am very familiar with his mind set here.  I had just forgotten how twisted it can be.

In regards to the moral and up righteous, I was recognizing or trying to recognize that there are people of variable moral focuses.  My point when using those words was that pretty much no matter what, if a woman who is raped and impregnated, of her own choice, decides to go through the pregnancy and raise the child, no one is going to come up to her and say "You are a terrible person, how dare you do what you just did, it was morally wrong for the following reasons:" because they would have no reasons.  If you can come up with one please, go ahead and tell me.  As for fertilization and conception, that is focused primarily in both my knowledge of biological science and religious belief.  I believe that we were all spirits before we came into this mortal life.  I believe we Volunteered to come into this mortal existence because it was only through experiencing mortality and being able to choose between right and wrong that we would be able to become more like our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits.  I believe that when conception occurs, when the ova and sperm cell combine, that that new cell which is now as capable of becoming an adult human being as a baby outside of the womb, is given to one of my spirit brothers and sisters who still lies beyond the veil.  That body, though it be a single cell, is theirs, and just for us the moment it dies there goes all future chances for mortal experience in this life for them, they don't get another body.  This is why the "It would be better if they don't get born in a terrible situation" argument doesn't work with me.  I believe the(y) Volunteered, knowing full well what they were getting themselves into, to be put in that body.

Mormons believe we were all spirits in a pre-existence.  The number of bodies are finite and were all conceived by a heavenly father (god) and a heavenly mother.  It also could be a father and several mothers because polygamy is still alive and well in the afterlife. They are conceived mechanically the same way you and I were conceived by our parents.  They gestate in the same way humans do now.

If a child dies in childbirth or in the womb it is considered to have lived its life.  It has one chance to get a mortal body.  That is it.

Here is where the theology becomes concerning:  Mormons believe that we all choose to come to earth and to get a body.  We knew, in some cases we would be born into challenging situations. Those might be:

• to a mother that was raped
• it might be in desperate poverty
• that might be with a physical or mental disability
• that might be with "same sex attraction"

It matters not the plight... we chose it!  This belief disconnects your average Mormon from empathy and divorces them from any responsibility to fix anything outside of their sphere.  It also allows them to dogmatically cling to "god's law" without considering the harm or potential harm the the theology may cause. 

What Mormon's fail to see is the disconnect in believing the above and the application of "free will" in this life.  The life you chose was pre-determined.  You knew you would be born to a woman who was raped.  Therefore she had not choice but to be raped.  The male who raped her had no choice.  If they hadn't been complicit in their destiny you wouldn't be able to realize your own. They fail to see how it leads to "this life must be endured" mentality instead of "this life should be lived."

It is easy for David to regurgitate these teachings.  It is much more difficult for him to think critically about what they really mean.  This is the pernicious nature of Mormonism.  It divorces the believer from critical thought... because that is the only way it can survive.  It does that at the expense of the human condition and ultimately harms our humanity.  

Alvord: Wrong on Housing... Still Wrong for South Jordan

Hot off the presses:

David Alvord, and now his buddy Steve Barnes, are pushing misinformation and fear.  AGAIN!

In the above photo (taken from David's campaign site) he claims there is a link between tax rates and high density housing.  He has also claimed that high density housing overburdens the schools and stress the city's infrastructure.  There are Alvords and Barnes' claims... and then there is reality.

This is one of those topics that has been studied exhaustively.  There is no negative relationship between tax rates and high density.  There is no negative relationship between high density and school size or traffic congestion.  And in communities that had low crime rates before high density there is no change by adding high density housing.

This study discusses the numerous studies on this matter:  http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/Dontputithere.pdf

I know, it is a study, it uses objective facts, it is Alvord proof.

What you might notice that they refer to affordable housing in this study.  That is really what Avlrod and his buddy Barnes are talking about.  They don't want affordable housing in South Jordan.  Affordable Housing units bring in those disgusting poor people who have poor habits.

Lets look at his argument:  "A $500,000 dollar home will pay more taxes than a $300,000 home."  This statement is true when said by itself.  This statement is inaccurate when applied to the high density housing argument.  A home worth $500,000 is not built on .19 acres of land.  It is built on at least a .25 parcel and mostly on a .33 acre parcel.  You can feasibly build two $300,000 dollar homes on the same parcel.  That means now we have $600,000 in taxable property.

Now we really aren't talking about $300,000 homes when we talk about high density.  We are talking town homes, condominiums or apartments.  In each case the density of the units equals higher property values for either the management company or each individual owner aggregated in the same area.  So we now have a $2,000,000 building occupying the same foot print as the half million dollar home.  Alvord's math just doesn't add up.

So what is the issue.  Alvord tells you.  It is about keeping the level of housing (or price) high.  By doing this you keep the "other" out.  What they aren't telling you, is that South Jordan is required to provide a certain number of affordable unit to its citizens.  It isn't allowed to discriminate by class.  The city must serve the interest of the poor with equal fervor it dedicates to the rich.

Alvord also claims that he didn't want to debate this issue with Scott Osborne's son.  He would rather debate the issues with Osborne... except that he wouldn't.  He declined to let Scott make a point in an earlier post.  This is what he said:

...But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Because Alvord's arguments are... indefensible.

Again, Alvord is demonstrating that ideology trumps reality.  His brand of politics is just plain bad; not only for South Jordan, but for the human race.  

Alvordia the new capitol of Glennbeckistan!

David Alvord is at it again!

From the last post on his Facebook page:

Mayor Osborne is not as conservative as the people of South Jordan... For example, Osborne favors the Marketplace Fairness Act. But worse than that, Osborne used his influence as Mayor to *expand* the tax-collecting ability of the government.

What the act does: is to allow government to collect taxes that it should otherwise be entitled to collect.  Taxes that local business pay but that internet business are not assessed giving them an un fair advantage.  

The real thing going on here is this:  David has cast himself as a liberal hating conservative.  This is evident in this statement: 

Secondly, it's a misnomer. Much like the "affordable care act" makes healthcare more un-affordable for many of us, 

See that.  He he warning us about the bogey man by invoking Obama (or an Obama policy).

Scott Osborne made a case for supporting the Marketplace Fairness act.  Specifically because it leveled the playing field for small local businesses.

Osborne responded on Alvord's page.  It was promptly deleted.  When questioned Alvord's responsed:

 Osborne's argument is on his page. But let me close with this: The Marketplace fairness act is widely discussed on Wikipedia and other sources.
Heritage foundation opposes it on constitutional grounds, while President Obama supports it. You can infer what you want from this information.

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does.

The people deserve to know where we stand. 

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does. 
The people deserve to know where we stand. 
But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Again it is about the Bogey man Obama and Alvord is willing to forgo any type of reason if the words or Obama or Liberal are any where near it.  

So what is the big deal?  The Mayoral election ins a non-partisan election.  It is about supporting the voters in South Jordan.  It is not about the divisive political ideology.  David would have you believe that the Mayor's office has something to do with the passage an enforcement of federal legislation.  It doesn't he knows it but he would have you believe that the Liberals are out to destroy the country.  What he fails to acknowledge is the Conservatives have beat us to it.

The following comments, in my opinion say much:

Of course, not all of South Jordan is conservative... and there are plenty who vary from issue to issue as to what label may best suit them. I hope whomever is elected mayor will approach issues with the perspective of how they best serve South Jordan residents as a whole, and not be overly concerned with party ideologies.~Andrew Hackman

And these two:

"I'm not going to allow my campaign page to represent those in the community who may disagree with me. That's why I'm campaigning for political office, to represent my needs." 

 It seems to me he is running on a "look, I'm Mormon, conservative, and hate taxes" platform, not an informed one. ~Revrnd Skyler Dudley

A vote for David Alvord is a vote for the increasing depths of despair that divisive politics inflicts on a community.  It is a vote to make South Jordan the new Alvordia, the capital of Glenn Beckistan

Why would David Alvord's Religious Beliefs Matter to Me?

In my last post, I told you why I thought David Alvord was bad for South Jordan.  The post found itself on a Facebook page called the South Jordan On-Line News.  This link brought out many of David's supporters.  Through careful research (by quickly looking at the public feed on my Facebook page), They figured out that I don't care for religion in general and Mormonism specifically.  That makes me an ANTI-MORMON who can readily dismissed.

I was only going after David because he is a Mormon and I hate Mormons!

Now really!

Kent Money is a Mormon and I voted for him.  Brian Butters is a Mormon and I supported him.  I am willing to bet Mayor Osborne is a Mormon as well.

David, for some reason, had been banned from the South Jordan On-Line news site because of something he or his campaign or someone supporting him did with or without his knowledge...  He was not allowed to comment but several of his supporters were getting talking points from him.  David's behavior, according to them, was acceptable because he was defending the Book of Mormon

I made it clear that my objections to David Alvord's candidacy for mayor of South Jordan was about 1) His temperament makes him ill suited to be an inclusive leader of the city.  2) He isn't willing to follow ordinances in the City if they don't suit him or his agenda. 3) He knows little about what cutting taxes and increasing spending (ALA George W. Bush Economic Policy) will do to the city.  4) He does not favor and expansive South Jordan that supports all socio-ecomomic contributors.  5) His desire to limit population growth to the "Right Kind of Housing" makes business growth stagnant.

Now personally, I wouldn't vote for David BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.  Not because he has them but because of how he applies them.  His supporters were correct.  David and I were having a public Facebook debate about the Book of Mormon.  He, of course, rolled out 'it is definitely an ancient text we know that because of chiasmus'.  When challenged on this, he provided studies... from apologists and faithful Mormons.  When his sources were questioned and the non-confirming peer review was presented he became agitated and started name calling.  When the DNA evidence was presented, he said science couldn't be trusted...

What became clear was it didn't matter if it was true!  It didn't matter what the evidence showed, he believed it and that was enough.  It was enough to ignore the evidence and to behave mean spiritedly.  It is enough for him to think himself above reproach and certainly above any type of introspection.  He showed that he was a miserable human being who was justified because he was a man of deep spiritual conviction.

I could not support this kind of individual in a leadership role in my community.  He places ideology and theology above evidence.  This is fine when he is writing his tithing check.  It is not fine when he is making decisions for an entire population or representing that population as their ambassador.  You see, you cannot bring canal water to the entire South Jordan population and cut taxes at the same time.  At least, not with out damaging the operation of the city.  You cannot be pro-growth and end high density housing at the same time.    The math just doesn't support it.

Oh wait, that involves looking at the evidence... something that is not required if you're David Alvord.

David Alvord is Bad for South Jordan

I have known David Alvord for approximately 7 or so years.  I first met him when my oldest son needed dental work.  As a dentist, David Alvord is capable and friendly.  I never had a problem getting my kids to go to his office.  The services he provided were at the market price.  He was neither inexpensive or too expensive.  I liked his office staff and he was centrally located.

'So what's your problem with Dave then?', you might ask.  My problem with David Alvord is that I don't think he has the temperament to be a successful leader in South Jordan politics.  He is not community minded.  In fact, based on my interactions with David, both personal and through Facebook, I would have to say he is "David" minded.

David entered into a Facebook "debate" with me over religion.  In this particular instance, he used his "professional profile' for this debate. This was during the Facebook period where your comments were emailed on the thread.  When he became frustrated he turned personal attacks.  Attacks like referring to me as some kind of idiot.  Now, he thought better of it and deleted the comment but not before it had been emailed to me.

David adamantly denied that science was useful saying that he was more about applied science not about everything under the umbrella of science.  In the middle of the debate he sent me a personal message to make sure that I would still feel comfortable about coming to his practice.  I mean he would hate to loose a patient over his narrow view of science because that would not be "David" minded.  I am not sure if he is aware but he did loose a patient or two who had been watching the debate unfold.

The second interaction I had with David was over South Jordan's requirement that businesses that employ over 20 people or that are dangerous or in a medical field carry an Automatic Electronic Defibrillator on the premises.  The purpose of the law is to get more of the AED's into the community where they have the possibility to be deployed.  You see, the quicker a heart attack victim gets access to an AED the higher the rate of survival.  A medical professional is the best person to deploy the device.  David of course objected to this.  He took the argument to Facebook through his professional profile.  His argument is that it was an unnecessary expense and that people would think getting a filling was risky.  He then posted a scientific study that proved you were not at a risk of having a heart attack from seeing the dentist.  You know one of those sciencey studies that he is not fond of.

You see David missed the point.  He is a man of means and privilege that could have used that means for the community good.  Instead, he looked out for David in one of the most selfish acts I have seen a medical profession engage in.  Second only to the doctor who refused to see a child, on an urgent visit, because the child's parents had to file for bankruptcy and couldn't pay his bill.

The second reason I cannot support David Alvord for South Jordan Mayor is that he doesn't really understand government.  He wants to cut taxes.  His primary opponent showed that South Jordan Taxes are in the middle.  Not hight not low.  The community enjoys an exceptional quality of life.  That quality of life is in part because of tax dollars.  If there was one thing I was impressed with in South Jordan, it was in the management and planning for the use of community tax dollars.  For most projects, they saved as to not create a debt burden on the citizens.

At the same time he cuts taxes, he also wants to bring canal or secondary water the remaining 70% of the city.  Does he not realize a major infrastructure undertaking that is?  How much money and resources it will use up?  While I think is a great idea to have secondary water to water lawns with,  He can't do both.  He also can't do this immediately.

David doesn't know what the mayor does and also seems to be missing this point: As Kent Money pointed out to me in 2005, the mayor's office is a figure head position.  It has no real influence on the direction of the city.  The city is controlled by the City Manager and the city council.

Finally, David does not favor a South Jordan that welcomes everyone and is inclusive.  He favors one that favors "David".  Limiting high density housing and rezoning the city back to single family homes only ensures that the community will be made up of the top 10% and the rest of the scale will be underrepresented.  South Jordan is already a tough place to live if your are not a home owner.  If you rent. the City doesn't consider you to be credit worthy to have your own water bill.  Under David, the unwelcome matt will be rolled out further.  I wonder how many high density residents he would deny dental service to?  I am sure its not many. You see, the policy of keeping "the other" out doesn't help business grow.  90% of the housing starts in South Jordan have been high density single family homes because that is what the economy supported.

So, given the scope of the Mayor's authority, South Jordan needs an ambassador first.  I don't think David Alvord would make a good ambassador.  He does not see that South Jordan needs to be a city that is inclusive. He is not community minded. He is "David" Minded.  The rest of you are on your own.

"What's Your Program Boy?"

While I was working for the Department of Corrections I had an administrator frequently reminisce about the days he worked for Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago.  He would frequently tell us that if we wanted to institute change we needed a plan.  "... and Mayor Daley would say to me 'What's your program boy.'", he would say.

I have seen the nauseating countdown to the election for Tea Party Conservatives on Facebook.  What I know is they are giddy with delight at the prospects that the conservative will return to power with their fundamentalists at the head.  What I don't know is "What's the program?"  I've heard the Fox spun tag lines and sound bites but what is really their program.

According to Wikipedia it is:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Okay that is simple enough.... But how and at what cost.  Unfortunately the Tea Party members on the whole are less than astute and less than educated on what the net result of this agenda will be or if it is even possible.  What we are seeing is "throw the baby out with the bath water" politics.  The policies they propose will likely grind the economy to a halt.  

I know!  I have heard it ad nausea!  The government is too big and there is nothing that the government can do that the private sector can't do better.  I have yet to see a large road project, a school being built, a prison under construction, or civic center opened that is actually built by the government.  For every government contract there is a capitalist exploiting the tax payer and fleecing the tax base.  Those contractors are employing folks, paying wages that are then again taxed.  The more people who pay into the system the lower the burden on you and I.  

So while the contract points listed above sound nice what is the real cost to implement them. More importantly what is the "Program Boy"?

The Tea Party Movement is for transparency! ...or is it?1?

Pete Ashdown, Internet Entrepreneur and founder of X Mission put this up on Youtube.  Okay, full disclosure... he is (says in a loud whisper) A Democrat!  Apparently while campaigning for public office, taking donations from the public for his senate bid and lecturing us on the fabric of the Constitution and warning us it is under attack, Mike Lee's campaign wants to limit how the information gets out to the citizens and delegates who are likely to put him in a two way race for the US Senate.  Ashdown is a voter and a potential constituant. 

Now controlling the message is something amoral corporate machines do and something dictators do or something we would expect from , dare I say it... communism!  It is not something that a candidate who supports liberty and free speech would engage in..... is it?

Come on GOP Delegates and Tea Party activists... call this man on his restrictions of speech and his lack of campaign transparency.  This man and his campaign are engaged in hypocritical activities and will say and do almost anything to get elected and if you support this end justifies the means tactic you are no better than the elected officials you are railing against. 

Special thanks to Glen Warchol for putting this up

LDS Church Strangle Hold on Legislature

I have believed for years that Utah is as close as you can come to a religious state, like the ones in the Middle East, in the free world. No social legislation gets passed unless the LDS Church gives its nod. Again....if you are tempted to say well you should try living in the bible belt...spare me. Just because someone is as goofy as we are does not justify our goofiness.

I was listening to Doug Wright on this subject the other day. He went on in his diatribe defending the LDS Church as a constituent of the State of Utah who was merely exercising its voice as a part of that constituency. This is a complete manipulation of the churches relationship with government. There is supposed to be a healthy separation. By definition a constituency is : a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position). The LDS Church does not have a vote as a church or as a corporation and therefore it is not a constituent of the local government. In Utah, this groups approval of controversial or morals base legislation in sought. They do not have to lobby like a regular corporation does but they get a greater proportionate share of attention than the voter or any other corporation and church.

As a lobbyist, you will not find a more influential group in the State of Utah and we found recently that the power can reach across our borders like they did in the Prop 8 controversy in California. A mere memo read from the pulpits of the local ward houses can create a wave of activism and a financial out reach that is very powerful and has undue influence on out elected officials. I personally cannot wait for the day that they are equal with the Catholics and other minority groups. Maybe not in my lifetime but my kids may see it.

In Obama-History!

I watched the Obama inauguration from start to finish in my cubicle at my day job. I watched it with a couple of my peers who were completely captivated by the historical moment. However I was taken back by the fact the majority of my co-workers were on the surface disinterested and when probed looked at the event with contempt. I heard comments like "what has he done."... " He's a socialist"..."you think he is our savior".

Regardless of politics we have to acknowledge this is a landmark event for our country. Barack Obama is indeed the first African-American president and not only did he win a general election he won by a substantial margin. This one event legitimizes the civil rights movement and represents a culmination of a 150 year struggle to achieve equality for many African-American citizens. The history is not just in his inauguration as the first president of color but in the fact that the American Public elected him for the hope he represented.

I have to admit that I am an avid Obama supporter. I did not vote for him in the Utah primary election ( I voted for Hilary) but I was converted in part by my children who are of voting age and by his reasoned message that was always thoughtfully and eloquently delivered. I wanted a clear break from the Bush policies that not only discredited our great nation but threatened the integrity of our constitution. I have been impressed by the folks who have crossed party lines to support this man as well. Men and women who have unquestionable integrity like Colin Powell.

I have a dear friend who is upset that Obama in his first three days in office has issued 5 executive orders and one of them ordering the close of GITMO. She said she believed these were the actions of a king and not a president. I believe we are seeing a man who knows the weight and the importance of his office and the constitution acting to reverse perverse wrongs that we allowed the last president impose on not only the world but his own people.

I am concerned that many Americans, pushed by their own political prejudice are rooting for Obama to fail. Rush Limbaugh recently said on his radio show that he wanted Obama to fail. He went on to say that he didn't want the liberal policies to be successful. My questions is if it works why do we not want it to be successful. I don't see how we can defend the last 8 years or at the end of the day say this country is better off.