Utah and the Zion Curtain

Another excellent example of Republican legislators who have forgotten what it means to be Republicans, and in this case, they think they are the Morality Police. (A job they certainly weren't elected to do.)
 In short, the Utah Legislature has expanded the "Zion Curtain," to now include a "Zion Moat." (A name they apparently find offensive, but it's beautifully appropriate and descriptive.)
Previously (to help the state get the winter olympics) they had "opened up" liquor laws to allow restaurants to serve alcohol. If a restaurant wanted to serve alcohol (and most do), they had to put a wall or barrier between the bar area and the eating area, primarily so children couldn't see drinks being made or consumed. (I'm not joking.) This wall came to be known as the Zion Curtain.
Now they have expanded it by saying you don't have to have a Zion Curtain if instead you just create a 10 ft buffer area from the bar where minors are not allowed at tables (unless accompanied by an adult), or build a half-wall or railing, at least 42 inches high, that creates a delineation between the dining and liquor-dispensing areas. The new buffer zone has come to be known as the Zion Moat.
"What this bill does is establish parameters under which restaurants can operate and keep children away from alcohol," Sen. Jerry Stevenson, the Senate sponsor, said. "It keeps kids away from the bars and the mixing area and works to prevent overconsumption by patrons."
Exactly how this helps to prevent "overconsumption" (which, by the way, isn't a word) isn't exactly clear.
And really, how does not seeing drinks being made keep a child from drinking it? (Especially if their parents can still order and drink alcohol at their table?) (Note: I am not in anyway suggesting that parents shouldn't be allowed to drink.)
But then because the Utah legislature just can't help but be hypocrites in every possible way, they added this to the bill-
Restaurants serving alcohol are now allowed to be closer to community locations (churches and schools where minors are found)— dropping from the current 600 feet distance to 300 feet.
And again, just further proof that Republicans in this state don't know how to be Republicans, this new bill would boost the state markup on liquor from 86% to 88%. The markup on heavy beer sold in liquor stores would go up from 64.5% to 66.5%. Utah consumers already pay the highest markup on wine — and the sixth highest on spirits — among the country's 17 liquor-control states and one county.

Republicans who raise taxes, and create even more government control and interference in personal choices- that's Utah for you.

http://www.sltrib.com/…/50319…/zion-curtain-lives-on-but-new

The Republican Leadership Have Lost Their Minds

Have the Republican leadership completely forgotten how to be Republicans? 
This is an absolutely terrible bill. Instead of coming up with a bill that helps provide access to healthcare, and makes insurance and/or insurance more affordable, it raises the cost of coverage for those who let coverage lapse (which is more often than not the individuals who couldn't afford it so they had to stop paying), and puts in more government involvement. 
Pres. Trump never made any promises about his future plan except "it would be the best plan ever."
This is what happens when you vote for a man who never laid out any actual plans, just empty promises. And a man who values his own ego and checkbook more than party values or the citizens of his country.

http://cnnmon.ie/2lybWgc

Born Republican? Born Democrat?

Are political ideologies genetic?
Watch this short 2.5 minutes video and you may be surprised!
From Academic Earth: Born Republican? Born Democrat? 
Created by AcademicEarth.org

Fighting Trafficking and Poverty at Home and Abroad

A family home along the river in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

I have been thinking and reading about human and child trafficking a lot recently. Ever since I left Cambodia in September it has been a subject never far from my mind. I continue to follow the developments at Riverkids, the organization I worked for, as well as other developments around the world. And my studies have brought me to some contradictory and confusing conclusions.

I hesitate to use the word “politics” in this next sentence, but I can't find a better word to describe my thoughts. My “politics” don't fall easily in line with any one political party. After all the definition of politics is, “the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, esp those relationships involving authority or power.” No, that is not what I am about today. I prefer to think of them as passions, beliefs, rights, and priorities, and how these are the things that make up who I am as a person. They are not politics. They are all that I hold dear.

I find that individuals who are passionate about fighting human trafficking tend to be more “left wing” or liberal. There is great irony in such beliefs at times. You see, those of us who are fighting human trafficking are intervening in parts of the world where the government and local leadership is so corrupt that it cannot be trusted. We step in with aid and assistance and provide welfare where none else is found. Educations are provided from donations from individuals around the world, so that the less fortunate citizens of “less developed countries” have a fighting chance at a better future. Some organizations will attempt to educate and reform the governments themselves, but for the most part, the education and reform goes straight to the people.

We do not expect their governments to provide aid or welfare for them. We expect their governments to abuse them, tax them, and continue to oppress them. I think of the families in Phnom Penh, Cambodia who lived along the river (yes, this is where the name “Riverkids” came from), who were forced from their homes when the river rose and the flooding worsened. The government evicted them and hauled them off to live in what amounts to no more than a refugee camp outside of town. No assistance given. No help or transportation to get to the city where their lives and livelihoods were.

In these less developed countries, we (the good Samaritans and humanitarians of the world blessed to be from more developed countries) provide aid and help so that the people will never have to be dependent on their governments again, so that they may stand on their own two feet proud of their accomplishments. We send funds via Kiva.org, we volunteer with humanitarian organizations, we donate our clothes, money, and time. We yell at and protest their governments. We boycott their abusers. We pray for something better.

And yet, back in the United States, we often do the opposite. Forgive me for using a “glittering generality” in my description. But more often than not it is the “liberals” who care about human rights and international development. But here on American soil it is the “liberals” who want to see more government control and intervention. They encourage more welfare and more aid from our government to our less fortunate. And it is the “conservatives” who preach about families and want less government, who are rarely found in humanitarian circles.

If we fight corrupt governments abroad, why do we encourage more government at home? Why would we want to become more dependent upon them here? We have seen what happens around the world when governments force their people to rely upon them for every little thing- and it ends in oppression, tyranny, devastating poverty, and disease. Why would we want that on our own shores?

Let's practice what we preach abroad in our own homes as well. Do not demand for the government to provide a better education- go out and teach others yourself. Do not demand more welfare- go out and give it. Do not allow anyone to ever become dependent on an impersonal system designed to protect the money of the government, and not designed to improve the lives of its people.

Haitians waiting for a handout

A welfare state will never succeed. Even the most well-meaning of governments will always have to operate on a budget, and will have no choice but to protect its coffers. No government will ever effectively be able to function if it is willing to bankrupt itself in order to provide more for its people. No government, ruler, or leader in history, with the exception of Jesus Christ, (that I can think of) has willingly sacrificed itself for its people. So why, why would we ever encourage anyone to become dependent on a government that cannot by design put his or her needs first?

I may have a “bleeding heart” when it comes to humanitarian work, but I will always vote against more government power. I will continue to stand out in the international aid community as the lone, sole conservative who did not vote for Clinton or Obama. (I will also continue to be a big fan of the great work Clinton has done since his presidency in international development.) And I will continue to stand out amongst Republicans as the crusader who wishes they would stop talking about immigration (how many immigrants are trying to escape a corrupt government to come here for a better life?), and instead focus on stopping human trafficking.

If Republicans were to put as much faith and strength into combating human trafficking as they have other social issues, they could bring an end to it on American soil in just a matter of years. Yes, human trafficking most certainly occurs in the United States, and not just abroad. It happens right in front of us on Backpage.com and right in plain sight.

Here are the words of Nicholas Kristofin the New York Times-

“Typically, she’s a 13-year-old girl of color from a troubled home who is on bad terms with her mother. Then her mom’s boyfriend hits on her, and she runs away to the bus station, where the only person on the lookout for girls like her is a pimp. He buys her dinner, gives her a place to stay and next thing she knows she’s earning him $1,500 a day.”

This isn't prostitution. To think this girl is a prostitute is naïve and misinformed at best. This girl is a victim of human trafficking. “Trafficking” does not mean she was moved like cattle across state lines, and sold to the highest bidder. No, trafficking by definition is the sell or trade of a good. And in this case, a 13 yr old girl is the good.

This is my rallying cry, my soapbox, and plea for the day. Conservatives- don't just preach it at home, preach it abroad. And Liberals- do not just teach it abroad, teach it at home. So many from both persuasions hold up an image and tell the world to be just like us, and yet, when the needy come to cross our borders, you turn them away. Where is the humanity and logic in that?

There is no need for a one world order. There is no need for a great equalizing law to make all things “fair.” There is only a need for all good men to do something. Or in the words of Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing.” 

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Utah Congressional hopeful, Mia Love

Utah politics bring up immediate assumptions and stereotypes. The state is perceived to be all Mormon and Republican. This is close, but not at all accurate. 2.8 million residents, a median household income of $50,000, and yes, in the last Presidential election, 62% of the state voted Red.
Currently both of the senators, Orrin Hatch, and Mike Lee, are GOP. They are joined by Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz. The state also managed to elect one Democrat in the last House election- Jim Matheson. Salt Lake City has a tendency to elect Democrats as mayor.
But now that I've convinced you that Utah is as Red as the stereotypes sound, let's move on.
Utah has an interesting hand of biting the hand that feeds it.
Case in point- former Senator Bob Bennett was defeated by now Senator Lee in 2010. Why would a state oust a senator that sat on 16 committees or sub-committees to bring in a freshman with the same exact platform and policies? Does new blood really help? Or does a ranking senator with a history, partnerships, and clout serve a state better? It would be one thing if you shook things up by bringing in someone with entirely new ideas. But Lee and Bennett? Not all that different from each other. (Lee sits on 10 committees or sub-committees, and is ranking member on one.)
Now Utah has the chance to actually shake things up in appearances, if nothing else.
Her name is Mia Love, a black, Mormon, woman. And she's running for the newly formed fourth congressional seat in Utah. If elected, she’d be the first black Republican congresswoman in the House of Representatives. Not just from Utah, but in the full U.S. House.
What qualifies her for the job? She is currently the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, a small town in Utah County. She also served on the city council. She is the daughter of [legal] Haitian immigrants. Her politics are conservative. Her website supports her views on limited government, increased citizen liberties and limited restraints on business. She believes the best thing she can do as mayor is stay out of the way of business and out of the lives of citizens. She advocates a return to the personal responsibility and reduced government dependency.
"Cut programs, cut spending, cut taxes and empower business and citizens to thrive and profit." - words from her website.
On the outside she may appear to be young, new, innovating, and different, bringing something exciting to Utah.
But policy-wise? She's the same as all of the other Utah Republicans.

All Politics are Local- the VA Governor Race and the Race for the White House Collide

Gov Mitt Romney and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia (linked to source: Deseret News)

Meet Governor Bob McDonnell. He's on the imaginary short list for Gov. Romney's vice presidential sidekick.
He is a former state attorney general, head of the Republican Governors Association, and all around well-liked governor of a Swing State.  His record includes a budget surplus, a drop in unemployment, and conservative support for signing a bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before an abortion.
A recent CNN/ORC International poll showed 1% of registered voters would pick McDonnell for the position, a figure largely based on name recognition. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nabbed the top spot, followed by former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (picture courtesy Atty Gen website)

Meet Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia. He won't endorse Mitt Romney.
Endorsements run both ways. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You endorse the top dog, you often get to have your picture taken with the top dog to run in your campaign materials. So why won't he endorse the top dog?

Lt Governor of Virginia Bill Bolling (picture courtesy of Lt Gov official website)

Meet Lt. Governor Bill Bolling of VA. A man who wanted to run for governor last time around, but instead, politely stepped aside to allow his friend McDonnell to take that place. He politely settled for second-in-command. Within the party it has long been known that it is Bolling's turn to ascend to the governor's mansion. And all looked promising for that to happen, until Cuccinelli stepped in.
So what does this have to do with Cuccinelli not endorsing Romney?
Virginia does third year elections. The governor's spot isn't up for grabs until 2013. If McDonnell were to get tapped for the VP spot, and Romney/McDonnell were to win, Bolling would assume the governorship for one full year before the 2013 elections. And assuming people liked him, (and people probably would, since they like him quite well already), he would have an easy "re-"election ahead of him. And Cuccinelli would not have party support to run against him. (VA is a term limits state. McDonnell will not seek  re-election.)
Even if McDonnell does not get tapped for VP, considering his standing within the party, and the work he has put into Romney's race, he is likely on a short-list for a large number of appointments. In other words, Cuccinelli does not want to see Romney win because it could potentially hurt his chances to become the next governor.
In two weeks, on May 14, the VA State Legislature will meet in a special session to review Governor McDonnell's budget, and elect some judges. And when that happens, the second and third most influential conservative legislators in the state will be in a quiet, (yet very polite- too polite really) war with each other.
Bolling, by the way, is the chair of Romney's Virginia campaign.
In other words, all politics are local.