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!

Andrew Richardson: Asking the Right Questions

May 28th, 2009 by Halli

By Andrew Richardson of Richmond, VA

When solving a problem I have found that nothing is quite so important to the process as asking the right question.

It is all about the right question. Do you want your intentions validated or do you want a solution? Too often the questions we see our leaders ask and then answer are the former rather than the latter.

Take the President’s appointment to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor, for example. If you actually want to know just how she will interpret the Constitution there are some questions you need to ask. However, if you merely want to make it appear that those who would potentially oppose her nomination are racist there are entirely different questions you must ask. If your intention is to make her look good, there are still other questions to ask.

As of this moment, I have yet to hear her answer a single question that will show us how she will treat the Constitution. All of the questions asked by the press and Congress thus far have been designed either to make her look good or hurt anyone who might dare ask a question designed to get at her treatment of the Constitution.

Here are some questions I would like to have Judge Sotomayor answer:
Question 1. “What principles do you live your life by?”
Question 2. “What is your view on overturning previous rulings by the Supreme Court that were completely unprecedented at the time they were made?”
Question 3. “What place does empathy have in interpreting the letter of the law, if any?”
Question 4. “According to the men that wrote it, the Constitution exists to prevent Government from stealing the freedoms of the people. What criteria would you use to determine if a person’s freedoms were being infringed upon and how would you go about protecting that individual?”

The problem is that when a judge decides to legislate from the bench, it is extremely difficult for the will of the people to overcome it. When the Supreme Court decided that because a farmer was using wheat he grew to create bread for himself and his family he was not buying wheat from out of state and thus could be regulated by the Federal Government, an avalanche of regulation was allowed to pour down on the people of this country uninhibited from DC. We have still not overcome the oppression caused by that ONE decision so many years ago. It was never voted on, it would never have passed into law had it been, but our lives are fundamentally different because of it.

Given those stakes, can we afford to gamble on Sotomayor’s appointment? Our freedom hangs by a thread; if we are ever to turn the tide and restore freedom to the people of this country we must fight anyone who promises to restrict that freedom any further. If she is willing to set national policy from the Supreme Cour, how can any of us, Republican, Democrat or Independent, trust that our freedoms will be secure?

I guess the question for us is, “Can we afford to take the chance on Sotomayor?”

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

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

Bryan Fischer: Obama Chooses Racist for Supreme Court

May 26th, 2009 by Halli

Idaho Values Alliance

President Obama’s nominee to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is by all objective accounts an activist judge who will indulge left-wing policy preferences instead of impartially applying the law.

She appears to be intellectually shallow, and perfectly willing to use her judicial power to discriminate on the basis of race, as long as the victims of discrimination are white.

She proved this in a one-paragraph ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, siding with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to white firefighters, and was even chastised for her blatant racism by a colleague, a Clinton appointee.

Said the colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, her opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” and represents a “perfunctory disposition” of a case that required thought because of the “weighty issues presented.”

Her racism-tainted ruling was so bad that even a Washington Post columnist lamented that the firefighters in question had been “deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

In other words, Judge Sotomayor is willing to cavalierly brush aside the profound principles of the Declaration of Independence if the people involved have the wrong skin color. Didn’t we fight a Civil War to resolve this very thing?

If we want to go back to the America of 1857 and Dred Scott, Sotomayor is the express train who will take us there.

Her ruling is under review by the Supreme Court, and an opinion is expected by the end of June.

Tellingly, Sotomayor freely admits that she makes judicial decisions based on her feelings and personal politics rather than the Constitution and the law, as if this were something to be proud of rather than ashamed of.

She said in 2002 that it is appropriate for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” and that such experiences should “affect our decisions.”

She added, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Picture a major league umpire with a Hispanic background who vows publicly to allow his race to factor into calling balls and strikes. His “empathy,” he admits, drives him to cut a break to players from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela out of sympathy for the impoverished circumstances under which they grew up.

This obviously would make a mockery of the rules of baseball. And so Sotomayor will make a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law.

And perhaps most tellingly, she famously admitted in 2005 that the courtroom (rather than the state legislature or Congress) “is where policy is made.” That’s as succinct a creed for judicial activism as you will find anywhere.

She is so far out of the mainstream even among her judicially-activist peers that she has been frequently reversed by the Supreme Court.

Sadly, we have a Republican president, Bush I, to thank for this inept and dangerous judge, as he appointed her to the bench in 1991. If there was ever a clarion call to the party of constitutional principle to wake up and smell the napalm, Sotomayor is it.

According to Jeffrey Rosen of the far-left The New Republic, Sotomayor’s colleagues have questions “about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices.”

Some of her colleagues have said that she is “not that smart” and that she is “kind of a bully on the bench.” Said a former Second Circuit clerk for another judge, “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

Apart from her own racism, prejudice and bias, she does not appear to have the intellectual heft for a responsibility of this magnitude.

The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford to have a racist lightweight exercising tyrannical judicial power.

This morning’s advice from Republican elites is to go easy on Sotomayor and reserve judgment. This is the worst possible strategy. The GOP must come out fast and hard against a judge who will lurch the Court even further to the left than the justice she will replace.

The longer they wait to vigorously oppose her nomination, the more vulnerable they will be to completely false charges that they, rather than Sotomayor, are the racists in the drama. They must openly and unapologetically oppose her as unfit to occupy a seat on the Supreme Court beginning right now.

The president is cynically appealing both to racial and gender bias in presenting this Hispanic woman to the nation. But Republicans should expose and reject this blatant appeal to characteristics that have absolutely nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with qualifications for a seat on the highest bench in the land. This decision is far too important to let racism and gender bias influence their decision.

If our system of justice is to be color-blind, as it should, then the place to begin is by refusing to be intimidated into supporting an obviously flawed nominee because of either her gender or the color of her skin. Preferring a candidate just because of her race is itself racism, plain and simple, and the party of Lincoln should be way better than that. But don’t hold your breath.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Memorial Day – Time to Remember Sacrifices for Freedom

May 26th, 2009 by Halli


By Richard Larsen

While Thanksgiving is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the things that we have, Memorial Day is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the people who have fought for the things we have, the most important of which are intangible. That was the way my parents inculcated into me the important role of Memorial Day in our holiday observance. The picnics, family weekend getaways, and outdoor excursions are fine, but the reason for the day should never be lost to us.

Having just finished perusing “House to House: A Soldier’s Memoir,” by David Bellavia, my immense gratitude and respect for those who wear the nation’s military uniforms is reaffirmed. Bellavia was in an infantry unit involved in the battle for Fallujah in 2005. Not for the squeamish or the fainthearted, the account is riveting, poignant, and awe-inspiring for the heroism, gallantry, and humanity of our service personnel.

His perspective on his job there was clear. Regardless of the reasons that brought them to Iraq, there are “bad guys” (the way he describes the enemy to his young son back home in New York) trying to kill innocent people and his fellow soldiers. His job, which he and the others volunteered for, was to eradicate the threat to the innocents, which by default was mitigating the threat to America. As he says it, with his brothers in uniform, his rifle, and the American flag on his sleeve, there’s nothing he can’t do.

Undoubtedly many of our returning champions of freedom wonder why they made it back and some of their fellow soldiers did not. Bellavia writes, “I know that there are families out there right now, mourning the empty chair. I am guilty for having lived when my brothers did not. I mourn them, and do not feel worthy to live on without them.”

Bellavia describes a sobering experience after his two tours in Iraq. He returned to Fallujah as a civilian, walking the streets, observing the normal daily routines of those who had returned to their homes. He was on another type of mission on this trip, however. He was going to the streets, fields, and houses where he had lost some of his closest brothers. On one street he placed a carnation for his fallen captain whom he had held in such high regard. He muttered a prayer, and then was startled by an Iraqi woman watching him. He started to leave, and after several steps stopped, and turned back to watch the woman. In his words, “She was kneeling in front of my flower. Tenderly she placed her own weeds alongside my cheap carnation. She touched her heart, then the ground, and uttered a prayer. She kissed her hand and touched her heart again. My mouth fell open. She looked over at me, and as our eyes met again, my heart broke. All the emotions suddenly broke free. Tears rushed down my cheeks and I began to sob uncontrollably. She regarded me sadly, then left without knowing the gift she’d given me.

“She wasn’t the reason I came to fight in Iraq. But she reminded me of the importance of why we fight. The soil in Fallujah and all of Iraq has been consecrated with the blood of our dead. And her reverence reminded me of that. This old woman showed me that my time in Fallujah was a life-altering privilege. It was here that we fought for hope. It was here that we fought to end the reign of terror that had descended on the innocents of a city.

“Through it all, I witnessed the best of human condition – the loyalty, the self-sacrifice, the love that the brotherhood of arms evokes. I realized then that I am complete for having experienced that. Those who died gave their lives for their brothers. They gave their lives for a noble ideal: that freedom from tyranny and oppression is a basic human right. We were the force to do that, and my brothers paid the price.

Regardless of the reasons for entering the Iraq conflict, and the Bush administration offered several, those who objected to it have focused on the most questionable of them, the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. The weakness of that one argument does not negate the others, and most importantly, does nothing to diminish the immense contributions of Bellavia, his brothers in arms, and our own local heroes who have served there, including Blake Stephens and Nick Gummersall, who consecrated that barren Iraqi soil for freedom, with their own blood.

There is nothing glorious in war. Would to God that it would never be necessary. However, as long as there are evil men in the world who tyrannically seek unrighteous dominion over others, war will necessarily be a part of the human experience. Regrettably, contrary to the naïveté expressed in bumper stickers, sometimes war is the answer. And we should be ever grateful for those who through the years, whether willingly or unwillingly, sacrificed for us. America and all who love freedom thank you and your families for your sacrifices in our behalf.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Politics in General | No Comments »

Andrew Richardson: Who ARE These People?

May 23rd, 2009 by Halli

By Andrew Richardson, of Richmond, VA

Who ARE these people running for public office? How can they have
failed to notice that the government stopped doing things “for” the
people and started doing things “to” us long ago? Yet, somehow, they
still think it is ok to tell us how they are going to spend the
fictitious tax money they hope to extort from the few remaining
productive citizens.

Have they truly failed to notice that our country is broke – that any
money we spend now has to be borrowed from our children and grand
children yet to be born? Is our standard of living truly so valuable that we are willing to
burn the future of the country in the fires of fascism to keep it
going for just a bit longer?

The men who created this country would have been appalled; Thomas
Paine knew the kinds of people it would take to keep his dream alive
and wrote about them. “A generous parent would have said, if there
must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
How far from those noble ideals we have fallen. Today, our politicians
are content, not only to send trouble to their own children – which in
itself would make them a rotten parent – but they are sending trouble
to all of our children and grand children for the entirety of the
foreseeable future. How is that just? How could that possibly be good?
IF by some miracle those people running for public office actually
cared about something as crazy as the good of the country they would
at least show it by looking for solutions to the real problems facing
us – the biggest problem being obviously, the burden of government
crushing the spirit of the individual.

“If elected I pledge to do __________.”
NO!!! Try, “If elected I will restore to you the freedoms you were promised.”
Or perhaps, “I will get the government out of your way.”
Or even, “I will fight to REDUCE the burden of the frivolous laws on
you and especially on businesses.”
James Madison said, “It will be of little avail to the people that the
laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous
that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be
understood.”

Did our politicians think he was kidding? Point to me a place in
history where more laws have been a good thing. Are we truly such
children that we need the government to tell us every single thing we
should and shouldn’t do ‘for our own good’?
If you see a problem that needs fixing fix it yourself? You are an
American, the government doesn’t fix our problems, WE DO.
Really, who are we if we cannot solve the problems we have created for
ourselves? Are we children – so undisciplined in our daily lives that
we cannot endure the natural consequences we have incurred?

I am tired of politicians answering questions that are framed by
themselves. Perhaps they should answer the questions that tell us who
they really are. I have a few questions I want to see answers to:

Question 1. “What principles do you live your life by?”
Question 2. “What will you do to take power AWAY from the state and
federal governments and return it to the people?”
Question 3. “At what point in our history do you see the tide of
government turn decidedly against the liberty of the people ‘for our
own good?’”
Question 4. “As _______ what will you do to encourage personal
responsibility, and will you return the freedom to fail to the
people?”

Just a beginning, but tell me, have you ever seen those questions
asked, let alone answered without spin?
We are Americans, the power of our country rests in us, not in those
that use our resources to pay off just enough people to get elected
time and again.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Important Memorial Day Rally and Program in Idaho Falls

May 21st, 2009 by Halli

Please join us at the following event:

This is a continuation of the tea party rally and to honor our veterans. Walk the freedom mile and/or attend the program.

WHO: All patriots who want to honor our veterans and become more involved in restoring our liberties.

WHEN: Monday May 25th

TIME: Assemble at the Veteran’s Memorial on Memorial Drive in Idaho Falls at 5:15 PM.

WHERE: Walk from the Veteran’s Memorial in Idaho Falls on Memorial drive at 5:30 PM. Bring posters, banners, signs, flags. A one mile walk from this location; turning west on Broadway; then turning south on Utah till we reach the rotary at Taylor’s Crossing; then turning east to the smaller rotary at Bridgeport and Riverwalk Drive ending at the grassy amphitheater.

PROGRAM: A 1 hr. Program starting at 6:15 pm. at Bridgeport and Riverwalk Drive, at Taylor’s Crossing will include veterans’ stories of inspiration, a presentation on the Christian/Biblical origins of the Constitution, what you can do to help save your freedom. Brings lawnchairs or blankets to sit on. There will be hot dogs, music and much, much more.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Idaho Falls Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Hope and Change?

May 21st, 2009 by Halli

So, how’s the “hope and change” working out for ya? Let’s summarize the changes that have taken place in the last 100 plus days.

America is being transformed from the most successful country in the entire history of the world AND one with the highest standard of living AND one with the most effective health care system into a Fascist (Socialism with a smile) soon to be, European-style third world country.

We have a president who hires and fires corporate CEO’s, destroys auto industries, injects trillions of dollars of worthless paper into our economic system (can we say “massive inflation”), spends like he has no limits (oh wait…he doesn’t), pits Americans against Americans, vows to “redistribute wealth”, presides over a “Crooked Cabinet”, and is adored by a part of the population which does not have the wherewithal to overcome decades of an education system driven by a liberal agenda and that has conditioned them to become ignorant “American sheeples”. AND, all this is supported by a willing media who are content to be told what to publish…truth or fiction or photo-shopped… for the purpose of pure manipulation of the masses.

But more importantly, all of this has inspired people to begin publicly admitting to experiencing “buyers’ remorse”. Our government is overlooking the fact that this daily egregious assault on our Constitution is serving to awaken a “sleeping giant”….We The People…who will not stand quietly by while our government deliberately reduces American to third world status circumventing the very guiding principles upon which we were founded and that have contributed to our greatness.

Meanwhile, the European media is dumbfounded that our US media continually represses information on this president who has yet to “prove his citizenship” and “hates his country” as is being reported in foreign countries. Obama’s anti-American policies are obvious to those of us who wake up on a daily basis to new government entanglement in our lives. AKA Obama is not an American in the true sense…one who loves and respects and is proud of his country and obviously has contempt for “We the People”. His urgency to transform America and implement his agenda is driven by the fact that “We the People” are beginning to stir and “We” are making it known that “We” will not go quietly into the boxcars.

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

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

David Ripley: Be Afraid…

May 21st, 2009 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In our ongoing consideration of the threat posed by President Obama’s pledge to radically “reform” the American health care system, we have asserted that a nationalized health care scheme poses a threat to the infirm and elderly. But some have challenged our contention that Obama’s utopia will inevitably lead to rationed health care.

That argument comes despite plenty of available evidence from those in Canada and Europe who are now in bondage to such a system. But in liberal land, evidence never trumps ideological beliefs.

Perhaps such persons will believe their own president.President Obama announced yesterday that he and his agents will begin to reduce Medicare costs by penalizing hospitals who readmit patients within 30 days. The White House contends that this arbitrary rule could save $25 billion over 10 years.

The American Hospital Association responded to the action by issuing a public statement, reported by CNSNews: “There are a number of factors beyond the hospital’s control that whether a patient is readmitted, including the natural course of the disease, the limited availability of post-acute and ambulatory health care services, poverty among some hospital’s patients, and a lack of community-based social services.”

So why is the dapper, new Uncle Sam, so concerned about giving everyone in America free and easy health care, suddenly playing Uncle Scrooge and attempting to prevent patients from returning to the hospital if necessary? Money, of course. Just last week this same Administration announced that both Social Security and Medicare were, essentially, broke.

So even as Obama seeks to exponentially grow the government’s intrusion into health care, he must cut existing benefits to try and keep the wheels glued to the bus. From this vantage point, it is difficult not to see that a plague of irrationality has infested Washington. And it is that irrationality and political whimsy which will ultimately prove Obama’s health care plans to be a far more deadly plague on the American people.

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

Posted in Family Matters, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Republicans Need to Return to Fundamentals

May 19th, 2009 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

It has been entertaining to witness the unsolicited counsel pontificated from the left telling the Republican Party what’s wrong with it. Not just nationally, but locally, with a liberal high school teacher and a liberal physics instructor lecturing Republicans on what they’re doing wrong. Since many liberals don’t view Republicans as different-minded Americans, but as enemies to be vanquished, isn’t that a bit like the U.S. accepting counsel from Iran or North Korea on what we’re doing wrong? Theirs is the last counsel I would give credence to on the issue.

How about a little counsel to the Republican Party from one who considers himself a conservative? After all, I have a vested interest in its success, unlike the querulous ones barking from the left’s sidelines who cheer the current transformation of America, and would just as soon see an American uni-party system continue control in perpetuity.

The problem with the Republican Party is that it has allowed the liberal wing of the Democrat Party to dictate the discussion. Rather than leading on Constitutional and founding principles upon which this nation was based, those seeking to transform the country into something it was never intended to be have set the political dialogue. As a result, the discussion is not whether we should have a deficit at all, it’s, “How much is too much of a deficit?” Rather than all human life is sacred and should be protected, it’s, “How many innocents’ lives are too many to abort?” And instead of government should not be bailing out any businesses, it’s, “How big is too big to fail?”

Democrats do an excellent job of making promises to niche political groups, and then not fulfilling them. But they’re judged not on results, but on their intent, and their expressed fealty to them. The “Great Society” has redistributed trillions of dollars over the past four decades, and poverty levels remain, as a percentage of the population, about what they were when the “war on poverty” was declared. Promises to political niches are no more than efforts to buy votes, with someone else’s money. If Republicans want to win elections again, commit to doing what’s best for the country, and all people, and don’t try to outbid for their votes, or dissect the electorate based on clichéd parsing of issues or catering to special interest groups.

Return to the basic Constitutional premise that government is to “promote” the general welfare of the nation, not “provide” it. In our republic, government was intentionally created to maintain law and order, ensure our national security, protect life, facilitate interstate commerce, and preserve freedom. Our republic was never intended to be a panacea or balm for all the ills and travails of society. It was intended to provide a legal structure for the protection of liberty and rights that would allow individuals to get out of life what they were willing to invest personally into it. If you want to succeed as a party, distinguish yourselves from the other one, don’t be content to be “Democrat Lite.”

A great barometer by which to gauge the potential efficacy of a national leader who espouses basic conservative principles, is observing the ferocity with which the whiners from the left and the mainstream media attack them. Even today, long after the 2008 election, mainstream media are doing all they can to not just demean and belittle, but destroy Sarah Palin. Since conservatives were not energized behind McCain until after Palin came on the national political stage, and the media continue to attack her, it’s a safe bet that they fear her, or someone like her. There’s your political barometer at work.

Moving to the left will not save the Republican Party, moving to the right will. Republicans had arguably the most liberal presidential candidate ever this last cycle as he tried to stake out the moderate ground, and he lost. He was also the mainstream media’s darling since he frequently bashed conservatives, until they had their own horse in the race, their own “anointed one.”

Question D3 on the bipartisan Battleground Poll provides the evidence. It reads, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be… Very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal, unsure/refused.” In the August 2008 results, 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; 40% somewhat conservative; 2% moderate; 27% somewhat liberal, and 9% very liberal; and 3% didn’t know for sure. Those results have varied only slightly over the past 10 years. Do the math, and 60% of the American electorate considers itself to be at least somewhat conservative. Maybe the reason you Republicans are losing elections is because you’re abandoning the core conservative principles that the Republican Party was founded on.

Does that mean that the Republican Party must be a monolithic entity that only accepts for membership those who completely agree? Of course not. Ronald Reagan, our last truly conservative national leader, once said that someone who agrees with him 80% of the time is not his enemy.

Reagan won two landslides based on fundamental conservatism, or classical liberalism, if you will. You Republican leaders should not listen to the pundits who continually harp that the “era of Reagan is dead,” while to them the era of FDR will never expire. Return to your roots, genuinely, steadfastly, and faithfully, and you may be able to come out of the political wasteland you now find yourselves in.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: The Congressman Responds

May 16th, 2009 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

After seeing our last posting on the very important issue of health care “reform” now being managed underground by Democrat leaders in Washington, Congressman Walt Minnick’s staff contacted us to share some of the work Minnick has already done to ensure that any reform measures are adopted in a fair and open legislative process.

In our previous update, we publicly challenged Minnick to take a fierce stand on behalf of all Idahoans to ensure that we have ample opportunity to challenge any “health” measures being imposed by President Obama – especially in the area of tax-funded abortions and policies designed to foster euthanasia.

John Foster provided us with a letter that Congressman Minnick co-signed on May 8th with some 44 other Democrat members of the Congress, urging three pivotal committee chairmen to abide by the regular legislative process. These members of the “Blue Dog Caucus” state that they are “increasingly troubled” by the immense groundwork being laid without input from members of Congress – including their group.

“[T]he process has yet to be structured in a way that includes the contributions of the majority of our [Democratic] Caucus,” the letter adds.

We are encouraged by this initial step by Congressman Minnick. We are particularly impressed with his staff. Minnick is to be commended, as we did Senator Crapo, for recognizing the huge threat posed by a short-circuited legislative process giving Obama a blank check to make revolutionary changes in the American health care system.

As a Member of Congress who helps maintain Speaker Pelosi’s power base, Minnick is, perhaps, in the best position of any Idaho delegate to defend Idahoans from Obama’s most outrageous plans.

While the letter is a good beginning, we must judge Congressman Minnick by the results. We note that his letter was addressed to three chairmen who are undoubtedly enjoying their tremendous power over the future of American families. Congressmen Waxman, Rangel and Miller are patently unlikely to yield their immense control voluntarily. It will likely take direct threats from Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to ensure that this whole process is opened up to the American people.

Congressman Minnick and his Blue Dog colleagues will have to throw their collective weight around in a big way to wrest control from powerful leftists like Charlie Rangel. But the stakes in this battle are such that Minnick & Co. must do whatever is necessary to get that job done.

In addition, we challenge Congressman Minnick to use his influence to ensure that the final product coming out of Congress contain iron-clad safeguards for preborn children, the infirm and the elderly. This package, in defiance of Planned Parenthood’s darkest wishes, cannot be used as a back-door method for obtaining taxpayer paid abortions. Nor can it be used to force health care professionals and hospitals into delivering immoral medical services or denying life-saving treatment to those in need.

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

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

David Ripley: A Public Challenge to Congressman Minnick

May 14th, 2009 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In a letter to a constituent, Sen. Mike Crapo outlines his anxiety over the president’s proposal to completely remake America’s health care system. Many of his concerns mirror ones we raised in our last posting.

“While I agree that the nation’s health care system needs to be reformed, I am opposed to nationalizing our health care system, as it would certainly lower the quality of care that Americans currently enjoy,” writes Idaho’s senior senator.
Indeed, we fear the new system may become lethal to many of us. In his letter, Sen. Crapo writes that the prospect of the federal government using “comparative effectiveness” tables to determine appropriate patient care is “alarming”.

“[D]octors and patients should always have the right to choose a method of care that best suits the patient’s needs without government intervention,” Crapo adds.

Beyond the tortured manipulation of “health care reform” as a means to strengthening Death’s grip on our culture through abortion and euthanasia policies, Americans should be nearly as alarmed over the catastrophic costs associated with Obama’s initiatives. One report low-balled the figure at $1.5 trillion over a ten year period.

That kind of massive new spending comes at a moment when two other monstrous government programs have been declared “broken and bankrupt”. Yesterday, in classical liberal fashion, Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius declared that the key to “fixing” Social Security and Medicaid is to create yet a third gargantuan social welfare program: universal health care.
We were most gratified, however, by Sen. Crapo’s obvious frustration with the process (or lack of one) being used by Democrats to impose this insanity upon America. In fact, he cites this failure as a primary reason he opposed Secretary Sebelius’ confirmation to HHS:

“I have grown increasingly concerned with the Majority’s use of the budget reconciliation process to force health care legislation through Congress. This strategy would result in a partisan, unbalanced bill that would be immune from the thorough vetting under the Senate’s normal process.”

Well bless Senator Crapo for understanding and defending the U.S. Constitution and Congress’ vital responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize the fantastic endeavors being foisted upon the American public!

This brings us to Congressman Walt Minnick. He has proven masterful at fundraising and public relations. Many Idahoans, because of the steady diet of positive press, suspect he may be a “fiscal conservative”, at least in the context of maniacal spending by a run-away liberal majority. But casting throw-away votes for re-election purposes is one thing. Let’s see how responsible and effective he really is.

We hereby publicly challenge Congressman Minnick to use his renowned influence with the Majority Party to demand that any and all health care “reform” legislation go through the normal legislative process. Something this big and fundamental should not be rushed through a back-door omnibus appropriation bill that almost no one has read. Minnick would thereby spend real political capital in defense of the Constitutional process – as well as the public’s right to be fully heard on a matter which will impact all of us for generations.

It would take real guts for Minnick to demand such accountability from his own party leadership; and if he could get Nancy Pelosi to actually listen to him, perhaps he will have proven he is actually worthy of consideration for another term in Washington, serving alongside a man of Crapo’s caliber.

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

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

« Previous Entries

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