From today’s Tribune:

Vice President Dick Cheney has departed Salt Lake City today after making a quick speech before a super-secret conservative policy group.
…The Council’s self-described mission is to promote “a free-enterprise system, a strong national defense and support for traditional Western values.”
The organization — made up of few hundred powerful conservative activists — holds confidential meetings and members are advised not to use the name of the group in communications, according to a New York Times profile of the group.

Did you catch that? Not just secret- super secret.

Stuart McKenzie said it best:

“Well it’s a weel known fact sunny Jim that there’s a secret society of the 5 wealthiest people in the world known as……..the Pentavaret….. Who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-anually at a secret country
mansion in Colorado known as…….the Meadows….. The Queen, the Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothchilds AND Colonel Sanders before he went tits up……..”

-Tom

There are many policy ideas out there that are common sense, and should be supported by everyone.  Controlling the border and making English the national language are two that I can think of off the top of my head.  Another is that you should have to show a photo ID before you vote.  However, the Democrats don’t think that’s the case, and are challenging it in court.

The main Democratic argument against proving your identity at the polls is that it is akin to a poll tax, since IDs cost money.  First of all, an ID costs, what, $20?  As we’ve seen recently, poor people in America own a lot of stuff, including 46% of them that own their own homes.  So an ID should not be out of anyone’s reach.

Second, if having to buy an ID is a poll tax, what about the gas it takes to drive to the polls?  Should the government pay for that?  What about the food it takes to have enough energy to vote?  Is that a poll tax?

Third, ID’s are needed for everything: buying alcohol or cigarettes (we know poor people smoke in high numbers), going to an R-rated movie, and of course, driving.  Who doesn’t have an ID these days?

Plus, if it was really necessary, states could waive their fees for poor people.  I suspect that wouldn’t satisfy Democrats, though.  It didn’t in Georgia.

Democrats will also say that there’s no evidence of fraud, so we don’t need to fight it.  Aside from the fact that that’s not true, aren’t elections important enough that we should take basic measures to ensure that they are conducted fairly?

Looking at this issue, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to wonder if Democrats are actually in favor of voter fraud.  What other explanation is there?

Craig

This has me pretty aggravated.  The Governor, who campaigned on vouchers, and signed them into law, is choosing to keep a low profile during the current debate.

He claims that it’s enough for him to state his support for vouchers when asked about it, and to personally vote for it in November.  But as a voucher proponent, I say that’s not nearly enough.  Since he campaigned on this issue, what he’s doing now, in abandoning vouchers in the 11th hour, amounts to breaking his campaign promise in my eyes.

It’s not as if he’s too busy to campaign for it.  All he’s been doing recently is pushing his ridiculous “Lights Out” program and attending meetings on climate change, neither of which will have any effect on his constituents.

If he doesn’t want to come out and fight for the voucher program over the next month, then I see no reason why I should support him next November.

Craig

From the Wall Street Journal, Sept 28. 

“Simply on the basis of fiscal responsibility, opposing Schip is a no-brainer. On paper, the bill expands Schip by $35 billion over the next five years, to a total of $60 billion, well beyond the 20% expansion supported by the Bush Administration. To fill this pot of federal dollars, the Democrats will raise the cigarette excise tax by 61 cents.

“Naturally, however, there’s a budget sleight-of-hand. Known as a “funding cliff,” the yearly Schip layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65% below current funding levels. This helps “score” the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls. The chances of the latter happening are approximately zero, and GOP Senators Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch should be embarrassed for going along with this confidence trick.

“More broadly, Schip is designed as a ratchet that jacks up the government’s share of health-care spending, and every time it grows it steals customers from private insurance. All the more so because states have been raising eligibility levels above the 200% of the federal poverty line that Schip was intended to serve. The Democratic bill raises the effective national level to 300%, and it overrules a sensible Bush Administration directive that states enroll low-income families before subsidizing the middle class.

SCHIP is talked about as a $35 billion dollar program.  That is just the increase.  A 140% increase, if my calculation are correct.  It will be a $60 billion program.  Now, look at the second paragraph.  ‘…budget slight of hand’.  The $35 billion number is phoney!  I guess I could make blanket statements about trusting the Congress but specifically regarding this bill, when it is obvious that they are fudging the numbers, why should we trust them.

Now look to the third paragraph.  The logic of other current arguments (vouchers) is an opposition to the redistribution of wealth.  Yet clearly that is what this incarnation of SCHIP is about.  The Peter principle lives on in government programs-a reasonable, competent idea will bloat to the level of just another expensive, mismanaged government bureaucracy.

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

Steve Meacham, Police Chief at Utah State University, explains an emergency drill involving assailants with guns that will take place at the Spectrum tomorrow.

USU has hosted a national Open Course Ware conference this week.   David Wiley, head of Instruction technology talks with KVNU’s Craig Hislop.

Rob Latham of the Libertarian Party of Utah – that’s big L – weighs in on the voucher debate.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a study on how Americans perceive Mormons and Muslims.   We’ll talk about the study with Gregory Smith, senior fellow at Pew.

The NAACP of Salt Lake has weighed in against vouchers arguing they hurt minorities.  Bobby Porter joins us tonight – he has created a counter group called Minorities for Vouchers.

And a cross country marathon for a special group of twins from Malad.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• 9/27 Salt Lake Tribune: New group says vouchers would aid Utah’s minorities
• Utah State University OpenCourseWare Website
• Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Public Has Mixed Views of Mormonism, Islam
• 9/25 Utah State Today: Gunmen to Descend on USU Spectrum Sept. 29 in Drill Exercise

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

Dr. Jeff Hall, Grant Koford and Dr. Ed Redd of the Bear River Health Department explain mosquito abatement, malathion and address public concerns.

We’ll finish the discussion from last night on expectations of employers providing health care coverage and insurance affordability for families in Cache Valley.

A Clinton controversy… Chelsea Clinton that is.  Dad doesn’t want her picture displayed in a New York Restaurant.

And we’ll play the Friday News Quiz on Thursday.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• 9/26 CBS News: Chelsea Clinton Photo Causes NYC Ruckus
• 9/23 Herald Journal: Stung by insecticide?
• 9/26 Herald Journal: Logan using ‘safer’ form of abatement
• 9/26 610kvnu.com: Voucher backers: Where is Gov. Huntsman?
  

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                               

The Sutherland Institute is a conservative public policy think tank committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles.  The Institute strives to make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family.  Sutherland’s role in Utah’s current voucher debate is educational.  Additional research on vouchers can be found at www.sutherlandinstitute.org/abcs.asp.

Even in a “post 9/11 world”, the Constitution stands, including the 4th Amendment.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow secret wiretapping and searches without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law – with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield’s lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general’s office was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so.”

And to those of you who have no problem with the possibility that the government might spy on you because you think you have nothing to hide and you will be safer, I quote Ben Franklin:

Those who would sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither.

Salt Lake bloggers, well more like Utah bloggers, have an email list to which I belong.   The admins from across the Bloghive occasionally collaborate through it for things like blogswarms and the like.   Our friend Marshall from over at Wasatch Watcher sent out the following email today:

Maybe I haven’t lived in Utah long enough to understand how things work
around here but I was absolutely blown away when I read the following
article today in the Davis County Clipper. 

Give the editor and admin a ring and let them know this is not
acceptable content for our local newspaper (or any newspaper for that
matter).

—————————————–
Main telephone: 295-2251

ADMINISTRATION
R. Gail Stahle: Publisher/ext 114
gstahle@davisclipper.com

EDITORS
Rolf Koecher: Executive Editor/ext. 126
rkoecher@davisclipper.com
—————————————–

Marshall,
www.wasatchwatcher.com

Here’s the article to which Marshall refers:

I have hesitated to write about this subject, but I feel that perhaps as parents you may not have enough information to deal in positive ways with the barrage of pro-homosexual information that your children are being exposed to in a variety of forms. I feel strongly that in your homes there is a need to teach the content of this article.

First I quote Floyd Godfrey from Family Strategies, Mesa, Ariz., The Family Times, Official Newsletter of United Families International, Summer 2007. He states: “Let me first assure you that an attraction to the same sex is a condition, not a state of being. In other words, it is something your child (may be) ‘feeling.’ But it is not who they are. Sexual orientation is changeable. One of the greatest myths ever developed in our society is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. This belief has grown to monumental proportions. In the times of Columbus, it was believed that the world was flat. In our day, society believes you are ‘born gay.’ If you need scientific support of this opinion, please go to the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). They have a wonderful library of resources and information.” Also see www.unitedfamilies.org/Soelberg-SSA.asp.

Godfrey goes on to say that the homosexual condition really has nothing to do with sex. “The feelings are symptoms of underlying emotional wounds and deficits. These emotional issues become strong enough to draw sexuality in them. When these issues are identified and resolved, the same-sex attraction diminishes and gives room for the development of opposite-sex attraction” (Ibid).

Godfrey says that there are many good books to help you understand what is happening if you are working with this problem. He points out that being “horrified” if you have a problem in your family is not the answer, but communication and love will help, along with a therapist who understands this problem. He warns that many generally licensed counselors have never been trained concerning this condition and that most colleges brush over it and give it the genetic label. He tells us that “no one chooses to have homosexual feelings. As stated above they are a result of emotional wounds and deficits. You can’t ‘choose’ to stop the feelings, but you can ‘choose’ to get help. Real change can occur through education, love and support of family and friends and professional intervention” (Ibid.). Other possible sources of this problem might be that homosexual behavior is purposefully taught or it might result from sexual abuse, curiosity, experimentation, etc.

There is a problem I need to address: As parents we need to teach kind behavior and tolerance toward homosexuals as people just as we can and should love people of other religious denominations, cultures, etc. even though we may not embrace their beliefs.

Concerned Women of America (www.cwfa.org) has an article that I recommend, “A Culture & Family Institute Special Report,” Friday, August 17, 2007. It points out that our children might absorb information at school or elsewhere that to be a “good” person they must accept the homosexual lifestyle, bisexuality and gender changes. Our children could get this information from the newspaper, television, a book they read, the Internet, a friend, etc. Gay sites could actually convince many young men that they are homosexual when in reality they are not. If your child has never heard an opposing opinion to the teachings of the world, it would be easy for him to believe what he hears. And where can he hear an opposing opinion? — In today’s world, only from his parents. (Note again that we are not talking about the person involved, but the belief in the lifestyle.)

The level of brainwashing of young people today is astounding according to CWA. “They are trained to uncritically accept that a certain population segment will inevitably be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. They hear over and over that any opposition to the practice of homosexuality arises only out of hate and ignorance. This propaganda is thorough and frightening because it envelops otherwise keen young minds” (op.cit., CWA). Our responsibility as parents is to teach them truth.

First, let me say that the arguments that homosexuality is a choice and that it is wrong are disturbing.   Very disturbing.  These are the types of arguments that cause inestimable harm, self loathing and unnecessary depression among many of our homosexual friends.   These arguments are also antiquated, trumped by our understanding of science and a society more enlightened by time and experience (I suppose that this is the ‘brainwashing’ to which the article refers).
But not allowing this type of editorial in a paper?   I don’t know that I would go that far.   I think Marshall, who is extremely sharp and articulate could do more for the cause of dismissing this harmful letter by crafting an alternate editorial for the Davis County Clipper.  Should the Clipper refuse to print a rebutall, then we’ve got a real problem.

Marshall, your heart and mind are in the right place.  Defeat these bad ideas through logic and fact, not through suppression.

-Tom

David Finch, foreman of the jury in the the Warren Jeffs trial, will be a guest on KVNU’s For the People tonight.

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

Polygamist advocate Anne Wilde of Principle Voices will join us live to discuss the verdict in the Warren Jeffs trial.

Democratic State Representative Phil Riesen has alleged that Republican Majority Leader Dave Clark threatened to stop health care reform legislation if Utah’s business community didn’t support Utah’s Voucher Program.

The expansion in the Children’s Health Insurance Program proposed by Congress will be funded largely by an increase in the federal tobacco tax.   Is this a good idea.   Steve Staneck, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute will join us.

There was a fire last night at Zanavoo Lodge up Logan Canyon.  KVNU’s Craig Hislop talks with Casper Berry, former owner of the restaurant.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

On September 7 the Cache GOP Central Committee passed two resolutions regarding initiatives on the November ballot.  To read the full resolution on the road tax click here.  The resolved section states:  BE IT RESOLVED that the Cache County Republican Central Committee supports the road tax ballot initiative.

 To read the full resolution on the transit tax click here.  The resolved section states:  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cache County Republican Central Committee does NOT support the transit ballot initiative.

 They are too long to post on this blog but go to the links and read the whole resolution.  They do a good job explaining the rational.

David James

We’ll talk about this tonight on KVNU’s For the People.  From the Heartland Institute:

No Tobacco Tax Increase Letter to Senator Max Baucus and Senator Charles Grassley Written By: Several Published In: Budget & Tax News Publication Date: August 1, 2007 Publisher: The Heartland Institute

---

Dear Senators:On behalf of millions of taxpayers, small businesses, families, senior citizens and shareholders, we strongly urge you to work and vote against any tobacco tax increase for reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

In general, S-CHIP is a misguided attempt to address health insurance for children. Instead of morphing the program into a universal entitlement, we the undersigned urge you to seek free market reforms to empower low-income working families and strengthen access to private health care coverage. As 70 percent of the uninsured children in this country already qualify for Medicaid or S-CHIP, an expansion of the program is the wrong direction.

As the reauthorization debate continues we urge you to work and vote against all efforts to raise the tobacco tax to fund the swelling program. Taxpayers in many states are already facing higher taxes to fund state health care program expansions. Rather than joining states in taking more money from taxpayers to fund misguided priorities, it is crucial that Congress lead the way toward consumer driven health care policy.

Raising the tobacco tax to fund S-CHIP creates a lose-lose situation. A higher tax rate will not only scapegoat a segment of Americans for using a legal product, but will also hurt small businesses, which often lean on tobacco sales to stay in business. As small businesses are the engine of job creation in the U.S., raising the tax on tobacco is destroying jobs.

In order to avoid paying higher and higher tobacco taxes, consumers will turn to the Internet or out-of-state sources for tobacco products. In fact, tax increases have led to an increase in illegal activities and smuggling. With an increase in illegal activities comes an increase in the cost of enforcing compliance. The very reasoning behind tobacco tax increases is fl awed. Proponents argue the government can have increased revenue and less tobacco use. It is absurd to argue that a tax increase will diminish the number of people buying tobacco and that it will increase tax revenues. Funding an expansion of children’s health insurance on an alreadydeclining revenue stream that the legislation seeks to further decrease is dangerous policy.

Once again we, the undersigned groups, urge you to work and vote against raising the federal excise tax on tobacco for reauthorization of S-CHIP.

Sincerely,

Jim Martin
President, Freedom Works

Matt Kibbe
President, Freedom Works

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council

John Berthoud
President, National Taxpayers Union

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Tim Phillips
President, Americans for Prosperity

Thomas A. Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Jeffrey Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom

Ryan Ellis
Executive Director, American Shareholders Association

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                               

The Sutherland Institute is a conservative public policy think tank committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles.  The Institute strives to make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family.  Sutherland’s role in Utah’s current voucher debate is educational.  Additional research on vouchers can be found at www.sutherlandinstitute.org/abcs.asp.

Someone sent this test to me and I thought I would pass it on to everyone here and see what you think.

Click here: http://www.poodwaddle.com/realage.swf

John Newbold

From the Communities for Decency website:

Indecent Public Display is a law that makes it illegal to display any material in any place where a person under 18 years of age has a right to be:

• If the material contains nudity, partial nudity or sexual acts; and
• It has no value for a minor.
• Nudity or partially denuded means:

  (a) Less than completely and opaquely covered (you can see through the covering):
  (i) human genitals
  (ii) pubic regions
  (iii) buttock; and
  (iv) female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
  (b) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered (you can’t see through the covering).

This law applies to movies, plays, video tapes, still photographs, books, CDs, magazine covers and any other public display where the person in the material is posed or presented in a manner to provoke or arouse lust or passion or to exploit lust or perversion.

This also applies to printed text such as: “Have more fun in bed: passion toys every Cosmo girl should try”. “100 sex tips from guys”. “Your secret sex cycle: discover the days when you can achieve the most intense pleasure”.

The law may require that the material be placed out of the reach of minors, behind opaque covers, or made available to adults upon request only. These regulations protect children from its content. Display laws have been known to reduce pornography sales up to 75% because it’s out of sight. Many are surprised that it often takes just one nice request to get a store to remove or cover inappropriate material.

-Tom