TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Guest Post: Prayer Campaign Underway at Boise Planned Parenthood

September 30th, 2007 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

A prayer campaign is going on at Planned Parenthood abortuaries across the nation. The local effort is being headed up by Randy Jackson, an ICL Board Member. He’s organized a working coalition of groups to conduct a daily prayer meeting at Planned Parenthood’s Boise office.
For 40 days, folks will gather in front of the State Street abortion clinic from 7-8 pm. All pro-Lifers are welcome. The prayer vigils began this last Wednesday and will continue each night through Sunday, November 4th.

In addition to Youth for Revolution and ICL, the local prayer campaign is being supported by the Idaho Values Alliance and Generation Life.

“The concept is very simple,” said Jackson. “Christians gathering for one hour every night for 40 days to pray for the repentance and salvation of local abortion doctors and staff, to pray for healing and repentance of the men and women who have been through abortion, and to pray for lawmakers at all levels to pass bills to guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, born and unborn.”

ICL will lead the prayer vigils each Tuesday evening.

Boise’s prayer effort is one of 40 prayer vigils going on around the country – in cities like Sacramento, Chicago, Washington, DC, Pittsburgh, Knoxville, Dallas and Seattle.

Please join us.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

Senate “Hotlining” Costs Taxpayers Millions

September 27th, 2007 by Halli

I’ll bet you’ve never heard of it. It’s a process that completely bypasses pesky debates, hearings, and annoying public outcry.

It’s called “hotlining” – the process by which “noncontroversial” bills are passed in the US Senate. Thanks to Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance for bringing this to our attention.

Hotlining can be used if both the Senate majority and minority leaders agree to the procedure, which completely sidesteps a traditional vote. Phone calls are made to each Senate office, using special “hotline” telephones, and a specified amount of time is given for objections to be made.

If no objections are returned, the bill is considered to have passed by “unanimous consent”. (Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, gives more particulars of the hotlining process on his website.)

While this approach is fine for some truly mundane bills, it has been increasingly used for more important legislation. According to Paul Jacob:

In a four-day period this summer, of the 153 hotline calls made, 75 were legislative measures, 61 were nominations, and 17 were post-office-naming bills. A few of these bills authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending.

Senator Coburn tells us that during the ‘05-’06 Senate session, there were 341 bills and joint resolutions which were approved. He cites the Congressional Research Service to report that:

“…only 21 of those bills received a roll call vote on the Senate floor. That means 94 percent of law making measures that were passed through the Senate were passed by UC [unanimous consent] or by voice vote. A large majority of these were hotlined and therefore excluded from full and open debate and the amendment process. In the 109th Congress, 1,408 bills, resolutions, or nominations were attempted to be hotlined, with as many as 40 measures being hotlined in a single day.”

During this session things haven’t been much better. According to a Roll Call article which cites the Library of Congress’ legislative database THOMAS, only 29 of the 399 bills passed by the Senate, a roll-call vote was taken only 29. “Unanimous consent” was used for the other 370 bills, most of which were managed using hotlining.

Roll Call observes:

In a March 2006 floor speech, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) harshly criticized the practice. “The calls are from the Republican and the Democratic leaders to each of their Members, asking consent to pass this or that bill — not consider the bill or have debate on the bill but to pass it,” Sessions said.

“If the staff do not call back … the bill passes. Boom. It can be 500 pages. In many offices, when staffers do not know anything about the bill, they usually ignore the hotline and let the bill pass without even informing their Senators. If the staff miss the hotline, or do not know about it or were not around, the Senator is deemed to have consented to the passage of some bill which might be quite an important piece of information.”

The authors of the US Constitution intentionally made the legislative process cumbersome and slow, realizing that time and consideration would increase the likelihood that good laws were passed. They never intended that the process be streamlined for almost instantaneous law-making.

The hotlining process is rife with opportunity for abuse.

Five hundred page bills?

Passed only because no senator takes time to object (if his staff even bothers to inform him or her)?

Legislation authorizing the expenditure of millions of dollars?

It is high time the public became informed of this dangerous shortcut and let Senate leadership know hotlining has to go, or at least be used only as originally intended.

I won’t be holding my breath.


If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: Bishop Driscoll Must Intervene to Protect the Faith

September 26th, 2007 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

We issue a public call for Idaho’s Catholic Bishop, Mike Driscoll, to intervene quickly and forcefully in the brewing scandal involving Sister Helen Prejean. As we reported earlier, she is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at an event to raise money for the Idaho ACLU. (You can see the disappointing details for yourself: www.acluidaho.org ).

This nefarious organization has played a pivotal role in undermining Christian morality and the sanctity of both family and human life.

They proudly proclaim their tenacious opposition to laws like Parental Consent, which has caused untold damage to girls and families – which is to say nothing about the preborn children snuffed out by their accomplices at Planned Parenthood. They have opposed every bill in the Legislature designed to protect preborn children.

But a quick view of their website demonstrates beyond debate that they are also involved in a deeper and more pernicious campaign to undermine morality – particularly targeting vulnerable teenagers and preteens. (Please see aclu.org/standup/comics/abstinence.html )

And there is probably no other organization in America with an agenda more hostile to basic Christian tenets than the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sister Helen Prejean, made a celebrity by her work to end the death penalty, is not just helping the ACLU build its war chest – she is also a keynote speaker at the upcoming Fall Conference, designed to educate and build the faith of rank-and-file Catholics across the state. It is obvious that she cannot fulfill both obligations without causing scandal and demoralizing countless Christians across Idaho.

We ask Bishop Driscoll to intervene. We respectfully urge him to ask Sister Helen to withdraw from Friday night’s fundraising gig. If she is unwilling to do so – then we believe it appropriate for Bishop Driscoll to remove her from the Fall Conference. How can she credibly articulate authentic Christian principles at the Fall Conference after materially aiding an organization dedicating to effacing any element of our Christian heritage from the public record?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | 3 Comments »

Good News for Education in Idaho: Supt. Tom Luna’s Perspective

September 25th, 2007 by Halli

There is a new day coming for public education in Idaho, under the leadership of Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna.

In a letter to the Idaho Statesman, dated September 10, 2007, Supt. Luna enumerates a number of new initiatives that will improve public education in the state.

First, this year there is an additional $20 million in the Classroom Enhancement Package which will help all schools buy updated textbooks and assist students who fail to score well on the ISAT tests. In addition, each teacher will receive up to $350 each year for supplies needed in their individual classrooms. (Idaho Education Assoc. members frequently complain that teachers must use their own funds to properly outfit their classrooms.)

Also under development is a concurrent-enrollment program which will make it possible for high school students to enroll in college classes. This will allow students who are capable of the advanced material to get a head start on their college education, and may encourage more students to pursue higher education (possibly even in Idaho) after high school.

Educational choice is also important to Luna, who has established a new Division of Innovation and Choice within the state Department of Education. This division will sponsor workshops to instruct interested Idahoans in getting new charter schools off the ground. School districts seeking to create magnet schools and offer other new programs will receive special help, as well.

In addition, an Idaho Math Initiative is being developed to increase math scores for all Idaho students and reduce the number of students who require remedial math courses in college or on the job. We can only assume this will be similar to the Reading Initiative which has improved reading among Idaho students.

And recently a legislative committee has considered another of Luna’s proposals which would allocate an additional $50 million in teacher salaries. The extra dollars would be paid to those teachers willing to trade a little job security for a little increased excellence in the classroom.

In other words, the increased salaries would seek to compensate teachers for assuming greater accountability for their students’ success. Under a bill proposed in the 2007 Idaho Legislature, teachers would have been able to choose a lower paid, job-secure track, or a higher paid track dependent on student achievement. A similar proposal is expected to surface in the 2008 legislature.

All in all, it appears that under the leadership of Tom Luna, public education in Idaho is moving forward in a variety of positive directions.

The stranglehold which the Idaho Education Association has developed and carefully maintained on Idaho public education will continue to be eased as school choice expands and develops.

Emphasis on student achievement (as opposed to student self-esteem or some other meaningless intangible) will increase.

Idaho high school students will have a new option for advancing into higher education. It should be obvious that taking an actual college class is preferable to enrolling in Advanced Placement courses, which may or may not be recognized by the college of choice.

Idaho teachers brave enough to actually assume responsibility for their teaching ability will have the opportunity to earn more as they participate in lifting students to greater heights of achievement.

Yes, it appears that public education in Idaho is taking a turn for the better.

Imagine – public education that gives its patrons and financial supporters (that would be tax payers like you and me) what they know is best for their children, instead of what self-important, irrelevant, “new-is-always-better” experts dictate.

It’s high time.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Education, Family Matters, Idaho Legislature | 4 Comments »

Guest Post: Bryan Fischer Testifies Before Legislative Family Task Force

September 25th, 2007 by Halli

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

I had the opportunity to speak yesterday on behalf of all us in the Idaho Values Alliance in presenting testimony to the Legislative Family Task Force chaired by Rep. Steven Thayne of Emmett. Other members of the task force include Rep. Dick Harwood (St. Maries), Rep. Janice McGeachin (Idaho Falls), Rep. Marv Hagedorn (Meridian), Rep. Branden Durst (Boise), and Rep. Dean Mortimer (Idaho Falls).

Using statistics provided by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, I pointed out that the divorce in Idaho, while about what it was in 1970, is almost 40% higher than the national average. Also worrisome is the fact that the marriage rate in Idaho is now 60% lower than it was just a generation ago.

Since out-of-wedlock births in Idaho are at their highest totals in state history, the clear implication is that increasing numbers of Idahoans are cohabiting rather than entering into the solemn commitment of marriage. The effective “divorce” rate, then, is likely to be substantially higher even than the statistics indicate, since the break up of cohabiting couples does not show up in divorce summaries.

Cohabiting unfortunately has become increasingly acceptable, due to the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism, and there are now twelve times as many cohabiting couples in America as there were in 1960.

Research confirms that cohabitation is harmful for adults, the children in such homes, and for society in general. Cohabiting relationships are notoriously unstable, as cohabiting couples break up at a much higher rate than married couples, and cohabiting couples who eventually marry have a divorce rate that is 46% higher than couples who do not live together before marriage. Children pay a terrible price for the inherent instability associated with these environments.

The risk of domestic violence is twice as high for women in cohabiting relationships, who are nine times more likely to be killed by their partners than women in marital relationships.

Children in cohabiting environments are at a much greater risk of both physical and sexual abuse. In fact, the most unsafe environment for children is one in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father, which is the case in the majority of cohabiting households.

Further, cohabiting couples report lower levels of income, sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction than married couples. The bottom line is that, if we care about both Idaho’s adults and Idaho’s children, we will support public policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation.

No-fault divorce, enacted in Idaho in 1970, has contributed to the instability of the marriage relationship by making it possible for one partner to unilaterally dissolve a marriage and break up a family, leaving spouses with no legal protection for the bond they have created.

As Maggie Gallagher observed, marriage “has become less binding than the average business deal. Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner.” No-fault divorce has contributed to a 25% increase in the rate of divorce all by itself, and has perversely contributed to an increase in cohabitation as adults have less and less confidence that a marriage commitment will receive significant legal protection.

Reversing the trend toward cohabitation will require a cultural awakening which reestablishes the view that personal happiness is a function of high-trust and lasting relationships.

But public policy changes are certainly a key element. It is probably time for Idaho legislators to revisit no-fault divorce, and perhaps replace it with a “mutual consent” plank, in which a “no-fault” divorce can only be granted if both parties agree to it, especially when minor children are still in the home.

Mutual consent divorce would give some leverage and bargaining power to the innocent spouse, and involves the least amount of government intrusion since the couple would work out custody and financial issues before coming into court.

It’s worth noting that New York is the only state without no-fault divorce, and one main reason is that every time it has been proposed, feminist groups have fiercely opposed it. They recognize the exposure no-fault divorce creates for women, especially those who have left the workforce to devote their full energies to raising children. Women in such circumstances often experience a precipitous drop in their standard of living, and no-fault divorce leaves them sadly unprotected.

If you’d like to read the full testimony I delivered on behalf of all us in the IVA, you may read it at the following link.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Sali: Support Growing for Congressional Reform Effort

September 25th, 2007 by Halli

By Congressman Bill Sali

Recently, a new Reuters/Zogby poll reported that just 11 percent of Americans believe Congress is doing a good job. This actually is a decrease from the previous poll that showed Congress’ approval rating at 14 percent. The fact that Congress’ approval isn’t lower is a testament to the graciousness of the American public. After all, that’s probably an overly generous approval rating for a Congress that just isn’t doing its job.

Some of us are doing what we can to change the way Congress does business, and I believe the desire to do something to fix this institution is growing.

I have introduced a measure co-sponsored by 28 of my colleagues to allow any Member of the House of Representatives to stand up and require separate votes on separate measures in a single bill. Congress needs more transparency. Members of Congress should be held accountable for the positions they take on issues. Bills with multiple and diverse topics do not provide you, the citizen and taxpayer, the ability to know where your representative stands on the individual issues.

I have also introduced a proposal to make legislative changes more accessible. H. Res. 619 would make it easier for everyone to see how legislation affects you, your families and your businesses and has been introduced with 14 cosponsors. If you’ve ever looked at a bill in Congress, you know the bill itself is without context. To know what’s being proposed, you have to read the legislation in one hand, and in the other hand have a copy of the current U.S. Code. Only then can you really know how the law is being changed and how those changes will affect you. With my proposal, the words, phrases and sections of U.S. Code being added or deleted would be clearly shown in the context of the Code itself.

Finally, I have signed a petition to force Congress to address earmark reform. This would guarantee that all earmarks are publicly disclosed and may be challenged and debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. I firmly believe that the spending of taxpayer dollars should be done in the light of day, under the scrutiny of the public eye. The public is tired of wasteful spending and secret, targeted spending projects requested by individual Members behind closed doors, and so am I. This isn’t about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about restoring transparency and accountability to an institution that has lost the confidence of the American people.

Under House rules, if the petition receives 217 signatures, a vote on the resolution must be scheduled. If the resolution passes, the House would operate under rules requiring greater transparency and public disclosure of earmarks contained in bills.

These bills and others I’m working on will help restore confidence in Congress, and I hope to be able to tell you more in the weeks ahead.

As always, it is important to me that I hear from you. You are encouraged to write me at www.sali.house.gov. Click on “contact” and “Email Bill.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Congressman Bill Sali, Guest Posts, Politics in General | No Comments »

Guest Post: Update on Planned Parenthood’s Super Mill

September 25th, 2007 by Halli

From David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life

After getting caught at trying to slide one by local officials in Aurora, Illinois, Planned Parenthood took to federal court last week, demanding that a judge order the city to let it open its $7.5 million “super mill”. We predicted they would likely find sympathy from an institution which gave birth to the modern abortion industry. We were wrong.

At least for now.

A federal judge refused to intervene. But the folks at Planned Parenthood vowed yesterday to return to court.

Meanwhile, the city of Aurora continues its investigation into Planned Parenthood’s deceptive campaign to gain permits from the city to operate a huge abortion mill in this Chicago suburb. Until those issues are resolved, the city has suspended Planned Parenthood’s occupancy.

In a related issue, Planned Parenthood of Illinois is about to get slapped with a $7.5 million libel suit. Attorney Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society has announced that he will file suit today on behalf of several pro-Life citizens who have been waging a prayer effort against the Planned Parenthood facility. Planned Parenthood has repeatedly and publicly accused the protesters gathered in Aurora of being “advocates of violence”, and even having a history of “criminal activity”.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

Guest Post: Parker v. DC Revisited

September 25th, 2007 by Halli

George A. Reimann

The case of Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia was decided on March 9, 2007, when the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the ruling of a lower district court. The Appeals Court concluded that “…the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

The District refused to accept the decision of the Appeals Court. While the D.C. Code, § 7-2502.07, banning the possession of all functional firearms within the home and making no exceptions for self-defense has been declared unconstitutional, it is still being enforced. The District (the appellees) filed a motion for a rehearing of the case en banc (by all 13 judges), but this motion was denied on May 8. The appellees then requested a 90-day delay plus two 30-day extensions of the delay of the mandate to strike § 7-2502.07 so that it could develop and file its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case. The appellees filed their petition for certiorari on September 4.

This case is now known as D.C. v. Heller and the District becomes the appellant and Heller becomes the appellee. Dick Heller is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center and he wishes to possess a handgun at his home. Heller applied for a registration certificate to own a handgun and his application was denied. Had Heller been a retired police officer the District could have granted him a registration certificate and could have done the same if Heller had attempted to register a long gun, as opposed to a handgun. Barring the carrying of a pistol within his home amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of a handgun for self-defense. Therefore the Appeals Court held that the denial of the registration certificate was unconstitutional and it is this denial that is Heller’s distinct injury.

Curiously, the District’s petition to the Supreme Court offered no indication that it accepted any portion of the Appeals Court’s judgment, yet the District’s petition addresses only the question of “Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.” Apparently the District has concluded that the long gun self-defense ban is constitutionally indefensible. So the District’s petition claims that “[a] law that bans handguns but permits private ownership of rifles and shotguns does not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear Arms, however that right is construed.”

Since the District believes that functional long guns are now legal, the lead attorney for Parker et al., Alan Gura, has petitioned the Court of Appeals to remove part of its stay of the mandate, thereby allowing District residents to lawfully possess functional long guns for self-defense. Gura’s motion is dated Sept. 12 and no response from the District or the Court is available.

The District’s decision to restrict its petition only to the issue of handguns should cause major problems since it conflicts with its representations to the Court of Appeals. The petition was described as “quite short on legal reasoning, and amounts to a mini-policy paper.” The rules of the Supreme Court require that the District include all subjects at issue in its petition. But the petition does not include the ordinance containing the self-defense ban and it falsely told the Court that a person in the District “may lawfully possess a rifle or shotgun to protect himself.”

So it appears that the District’s petition is poorly done as well as defective. It may even offend the liberal justices on the Supreme Court. Four justices must agree to accept the case and if they do this decision should be made by mid-November and the case should be heard near the end of the coming term ending in June, 2008.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues | 3 Comments »

Guest Post: We Must Remain Focused on National Security

September 24th, 2007 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

While most Americans were preoccupied with the continuing saga of O.J. Simpson this week, the details of two alarming events that occurred in July came to light reinforcing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism.

According to the highly regarded United Kingdom publication, Jane’s Defense Weekly, dozens of Iranian engineers and Syrian military officers were killed while attempting to mount chemical weapon warheads onto missiles capable of striking Israel.

According to the report, a joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on Scud missiles in Syria when the explosion occurred spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas. According to Andrew Semmel, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for nuclear nonproliferation policy, the missiles were being armed and prepared for shipment to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Scud missiles, manufactured and proliferated by North Korea, reportedly have a range of 300 miles, easily able to reach Israel from Hezbollah missile sites in Southern Lebanon.

Also released this week was news that Israeli air strikes took out a series of bunkers in Syria. According to Israeli intelligence, the bunkers were being used by Syria to perpetuate a nuclear bomb project that the Syrians have long denied even existed. Based on the reticence by Syrian officials about the strike, and the failure to condemn the attack by Israeli warplanes, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that whether the installation was nuclear or not, it was clearly up to no good and Syria got caught with the proverbial “hand in the cookie jar.”

Since July when these two events occurred, North Korean, Syrian, and Iranian officials have been scampering between the three nations in an obvious frenzy to regroup on their WMD production and proliferation plans. Of greatest concern to Iran, is the fact that a tactical Israeli ground force was able to penetrate deep into Syria to target the bunkers a day before the air strike took place, as well as the fact that Syria’s air-defense system went down just as the squadron of Israeli fighters entered Syrian air space.

Semmel stated the obvious, that “good foreign policy, good national security policy, would suggest that we pay very close attention to what Syria is doing. We’re watching very closely. Obviously, the Israelis were watching very closely.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to provide financial and military support to the terrorist groups fighting our troops in Iraq. Not only is much of the weaponry being captured by our forces manufactured by Iran, but an increasing number of Iranian military personnel are being killed and captured there as well, further validating the claims of a connection between Iran and the Islamic-extremist jihadists seeking the eradication of all non-believers, especially Americans.

These events underscore the nefarious nature of the triumvirate between Syria, Iran, and North Korea as a threat to global security, the new “axis of evil.” As obvious state sponsors of global terrorism, the continued development of nuclear weapons technology by all three nations, and their possession and intent to deliver chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups should make it obvious that these countries clearly represent a significant threat, not only to the Middle East and Israel, but to our national security and global security as well.

In spite of these threats, one party of presidential candidates remains virtually silent on the external threats facing us now and in the future. While national security and international concerns are threatened, they debate health care, homosexual rights, whether a woman can run the White House and man-made global warming. While these are quasi-legitimate issues of varying significance, there are more pressing issues that they seem oblivious to, ignorant of, and unconcerned with.

Conversely, the level of awareness and concerns about these external threats is high among another party of candidates. Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani especially evidence a great awareness, as well as having well developed strategies for dealing with these threats that at least ostensibly appear viable. At least they’re aware and informed and talk about it; much more than can be said for their counterparts from the other party.

The next fourteen months will be filled with a frenzy of political talk as candidates jockey for votes in the 2008 presidential election. While each of us may have individual topics of interest, the more consequential issues of global and national security must be factored into the equation as we select our new president. After all, terrorism and threats from state sponsors of jihad seem to be much more a threat to us than the fabricated alarmism of man-made global warming and a host of other inconsequential issues. It’s not just a bumper sticker slogan.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty | No Comments »

Guest Post: Catholic Nun to Raise Money for Idaho ACLU

September 24th, 2007 by Halli

From David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho ACLU has announced that Sister Helen Prejean, made a celebrity by her book and movie on the death penalty (“Dead Man Walking”), will be its featured speaker at a fundraiser later this week. The ACLU will charge $50 per person on Friday, September 28th so local supporters can meet Sister Helen and fill their war chest.

Sister Helen is a member of the Congregation of St. Joseph and native to Louisiana.

She is coming to Boise to speak at the Catholic Diocese’s Fall Conference, and apparently added the ACLU fundraising gig to her itinerary.

Perhaps Sister Helen is unaware of the pivotal role the Idaho ACLU plays in promoting abortion. They have sued the State of Idaho half-a-dozen times on various abortion laws – including a decade-long battle to establish a “right” to tax-funding of abortions. They essentially operate as the legal arm of Idaho Planned Parenthood, and have opposed every pro-Life bill presented in the Idaho Legislature over many years. (The last was our Parental Consent legislation). The blood from thousands of sacrificed Idaho children drip from the hands of her radical beneficiaries.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting