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!

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood Head Devalues Human Life

October 27th, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, made explicit what many of us already knew: Planned Parenthood is part of a larger anti-human coalition best identified under the banner of radical environmentalism.

In a radio interview this week, Richards argued that public funding of her organization was good public policy because eliminating new children meant fewer demands on other government services. It was part of a public relations campaign to increase her group’s share of the slaughtered pig known as “ObamaCare”.

The power of her argument, like many other evil ideologies, is that there is a certain simplistic logic to it.

But a little reflection should alarm average persons of decency. At the core of her thinking is the failure to recognize the immeasurable worth and value of each human being. People are mere commodities in Richards’ world.

Even if you are one of those who don’t put much stock in the value of each person because we are created in God’s image, you should still be anxious about the implications of Richards’ argument.

“Demographics is destiny”, as the axiom goes – and America’s declining birth rate, spurred by Richards’ abortion business, has profound economic implications. An ageing population and shrinking productive labor pool portends some very difficult economic shrinkage on the horizon.

Richards fails to appreciate not only fundamental spiritual truths but the economic ones as well. Destroying babies in the womb destroys consumers, producers, entrepreneurs and vast potential talent.

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

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

Richard Larsen: The Tea Party Movement, for the Intellectually Challenged

October 27th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

If you believe the Tea Party movement is comprised of a bunch of crazy, gullible, illiterate lunatics, this column’s for you, as a primer not a comprehensive exegesis. The mainstream media and career politicians are telling you that’s what the movement is comprised of. With the proliferation of “how to” books for “dummies,” the temptation was to name this column accordingly. Instead, let’s just say this is for the politically intellectually-challenged. So for you who take such deep draughts of the colloquial mainstream Kool Aid du jour, this column’s for you.

As one local columnist penned, the Tea Party folk are no better than the gullible fools responding to the cry of the street peddler hawking “gen-yew-wine” deals. By implication, they have no thoughts of their own and simply follow the loudest cry and their gullibility is exceeded only by their ignorance. And more explicitly, they’re “simple folk” who hate “’govermint.’ They don’t like it until they need it.”

Contrary to the condescending and ill-informed assertion of the columnist, Tea Party conservatives aren’t “simple folk,” especially if that’s his euphemism for “stupid.” They are, however, driven by common sense and logic. I believe they know the Constitution and the principles this country was founded on better than the entire administration in Washington, as well as many who deride the movement using such language as the aforementioned columnist.

Consequently, they know the proper bounds and limitations of government, which does not include bankrupting the country, foisting confiscatory taxes on the citizenry, expanding “corporate welfare” to the point where entire industries are taken over or controlled by bureaucrats in Washington who know little of the respective industries. And they expect them to do something about unemployment besides attacking and bashing the private sector that does most of the employing!

Tea Partiers support the constitutional functions of government, and logical and progressive levels of taxation in order to support them. They support logical, protective regulation, but reject centralized planning and government intrusion into every aspect of our lives at the cost of our liberty.

On the national front we are afflicted with a bevy of illiterate and ignorant pundits who likewise know little, and understand even less, where the Tea Partiers are coming from. Not least of these is Chris Matthews, who seems to think that if the 33 trapped miners in Chile were Tea Partiers “They would have been killing each other after about two days.” Matthews continues, displaying even more of his ignorance by claiming the Tea Partier’s “central belief is ‘every man for himself.’ …No more taxes, no more government, no more everything. No more safety net.”

This is so ludicrous it’s tempting to simply let it stand on its own speciousness. But it does command a couple of responses. To the contrary, Chris, Tea Partiers believe in a sense of community borne of compassion traceable to roots of religiosity. They reach out to help another because they have the freedom and heart to do so, not because a bureaucrat or politician commands them to do it.

And far from believing in “no more everything, no more safety net,” the Tea Partiers are fiscal realists and see the decimation caused to Medicare by Obamacare, and realize the security of Social Security is a broken promise to future generations (probably starting with mine) if fiscal discipline and responsible planning are not adopted expeditiously in the halls of Congress.

I honestly think no one can say what the 21st century Tea Partier believes in better than one of our 18th century founders, Thomas Jefferson. He succinctly stated, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Right now we have a government that is neither wise nor frugal. In four short years since the majority party took over Congress, federal debt has doubled, and the yearly deficit has more than quadrupled. They pass regulations and laws that create more problems than they solve, while leaving the real underlying problems unaddressed. Exemplary among those are financial reform that doesn’t solve the problems that led to this recession, and “health-care” reform that, contrary to promises, is making everyone’s insurance more expensive and is drastically affecting Medicare.

We need a wise and frugal government. We deserve it, and expect it, and are motivated perhaps more than ever before to do something about it. For the intellectually challenged whose perception of the Tea Party movement is as convoluted as the aforementioned examples, we love America and the principles that made her great. And for us, these mid-term elections can’t come quickly enough!

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

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

David Ripley: Idaho Liberal “Republican” Plays Spoiler

October 19th, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Conservative candidates across the nation have been complaining about the failure of “establishment” Republicans to support GOP nominees who defeated moderates in primary contests. In some cases, like Alaska, the defeated moderate has actually gone so far as to continue the primary campaign forward – for the distinct purpose of defeating their conservative Republican nemesis.

Much of the same dynamic is playing-out up north, in Latah County.

Many were shocked to see long-time liberal senator Gary Schroeder defeated in the May primary. Not because he didn’t deserve defeat by Republicans – but because he has long survived conservative challenges via substantial cross-over votes from Democrat activists who believed he was the best deal they could get. But this year, Democrats decided they wanted a real Democrat to serve in the Idaho Senate and let Schroeder fend for himself.

After some 18 years in the Senate, Schroeder was finally turned-out by Republicans.

Needless to say, the newly-minted “Citizen” Schroeder is quite angry about his new civilian status. So angry, in fact, that he has actually written letters to the editor urging that Latah County voters oppose the Republican to whom he lost the Primary. Despite holding the office of precinct committeeman, Schroeder makes it clear that he intends to vote for the Democrat senate candidate.

There seems to be no mechanism in place for the Republican Party to discipline Mr. Schroeder for his gross lack of loyalty to the party which has put up with him for decades.

Be that as it may, things took a very ugly turn last week. Thousands of postcards began showing up in mailboxes across the county, supposedly from a group called “Friends of Bouma”. In the postcard, the ugly spectre of religious bigotry is played in the hopes of alienating voters from supporting Gresham Bouma for Senate.

The only problem is that Bouma knew nothing of the mailing, nor is there any such group.

Even the Democrats have been forced to denounce the mailing, which attempts to pit Evangelicals against Mormons, Catholics against agnostics.

As of this writing, no one has stepped forward to claim “credit” for this sordid campaign sleaze. And no one probably will. The only hope is that the prosecuting attorney will be able to uncover evidence about the project: where it was printed, who purchased the stamps, when they were mailed.

It may be unfair to wonder if Gary Schroeder is at the root of this whole affair. But the defeat of Bouma would certainly rebound to Schroeder’s benefit. It would open the door for him to run again in 2012 as “the only Republican who could hold the seat”. And certainly Schroeder has made it publicly clear that he is very troubled by Bouma’s Christian faith, which is the basic thrust of the postcard smear.

If Gary Schroeder is not involved in this dangerous, dirty campaign trick – he would be well advised to join other responsible persons in publicly denouncing it as beneath the dignity of Idaho’s electorate.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Politics in General, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Time to Employ the “Pruning Knife”

October 19th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.” So penned Thomas Jefferson at the nascent stages of our republic. The applicability of that verity has never been more apt than today.

Public offices have indeed multiplied. Government has grown exponentially in recent years to a massive size, taking over entire industries and large segments of our economy. By some estimates, government (at all levels) now comprises 40% of all consumption in the country. When you consider that government doesn’t produce anything, that all it does is consume and take from those who do produce, that doesn’t bode well for the future of economic growth for the nation.

The increase of expense beyond income is well documented, and the ruling class in Washington refuses to take responsibility or ownership of it. The Wall Street Journal put the spending increases of the past three years under the control of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, in perfect perspective. “Congress controls the purse strings. When Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid rose to their present jobs in January 2007, the deficit was $161 billion. It had been on a downward trajectory from $413 billion in 2004. Three years later, the Pelosi-Reid Congress had added $1.2 trillion to the deficit. Of course, Mr. Bush sponsored or signed into law many of these deficit-raising bills, such as the bank bailouts and effective tax rebates of 2008. But the Democratic Congress passed them.”

“Long forgotten is the promise Mrs. Pelosi made on the day she became speaker: ‘Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.’ I think future generations would like a do-over. … For the sake of comparison, let’s look at the Pelosi-Reid fiscal record over 10 years. In January 2007, the CBO projected a $379 billion surplus over the next decade. Now, after four years under Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, and two years of Mr. Obama in the White House, the 2007-2016 projection is a deficit of $7.16 trillion.

“This deterioration of the nation’s fiscal situation is arguably the worst in United States history, and it was brought to us courtesy of a congressional leadership that pledged ‘pay as you go’ budgeting to bring the budget into balance. It is no wonder that Americans are not eager to retain the services of these two spendthrifts as leaders of Congress.”

President Jefferson was correct that these are indications that solicit the employment of a pruning knife, if we can find one big enough. But first we need to take the shovel away from congress. When you’re in too deep, you don’t keep digging deeper, yet that’s precisely what congressional leadership has continued to do.

Thirty years ago the financial mess of the country was nowhere near what it is today, with the total federal debt to GDP ratio over 90%. Yet Ronald Reagan recognized even then that unbridled government spending posed a serious threat to the nation. He declared, “These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. … It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?”

Hillary Clinton was exactly right when she declared recently that our federal debt constitutes a very real national security threat. The minority party in Washington has been dubbed the party of “no,” yet what we need is a party of “hell no!” No more expansion of government, no more increase in spending, no more curtailment of individual freedom, no more trampling of the explicitly stated Constitutional limitations of governmental power. We all do our part when we vote in two weeks.

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

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

David Ripley: Abortion Becomes the 11th Hour Issue

October 18th, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

As we enter the closing days of the 2010 election season, abortion is becoming a key battleground issue in a number of contests around the country.

California’s Barbara Boxer, desperate to hold onto her seat in the Senate, is trying to rally her base by attacking the Republican nominee for her pro-Life views. In fact, Boxer has gone so far as to equate her election contest as a de facto referendum on abortion rights. (Beats trying to defend a sorry legislative record).

Much the same dynamic is playing in Colorado, where Democrats are trying to derail the winning campaign of ken Buck because he has taken a strong pro-Life stand.

Here in Idaho, the National Right to Life Committee has just made a modest investment in explaining Walt Minnick’s pro-abortion politics.

In Nevada, Harry Reid is attempting to defend himself for backing the expansion of abortion under ObamaCare by asserting that, somehow, the Hyde Amendment will limit tax funded abortions. (Sen. Reid has never been too quick on picking up the details).

But the sorriest example of the fight over abortion rights may be in Florida, where Charlie Crist – the former pro-Life, Republican – has taken to attacking Marco Rubio for being pro-Life. As we’ve noted before, Crist’s use of preborn children to fuel his crude personal ambitions makes him the paragon of all that is rotten with the political class which has too long ruled this nation.

What are we to make of all this late focus on abortion? In its simplest form, it is largely a sign of Democrat desperation. They know that the nation is fired-up over their economic failures and the threat of ObamaCare to freedom and financial security. Democrats certainly know they must avoid talk about jobs and rising unemployment. What’s left?

They are desperately trying to motivate their radical base by raising the spectre of abortion rights, racism and Social Security.

Fortunately for America, this strategy will not gain them electoral victories. Most voters do not support their abortion radicalism, and see the expansion of abortion through ObamaCare as yet another example of their abuse of the public trust.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Who Are the Real Extremists?

October 8th, 2010 by Halli


By Richard Larsen

Mainstream media and politicians alike take great pleasure in describing the phenomenon known as the Tea Party Movement as extremists and their agenda as cataclysmic. Any candidate or national figure who aligns himself or herself with the movement is ascribed the most impure of motives, and denounced, derided, and ridiculed as “fringe,” “kooks,” and “extremists,” in an effort to discredit them.

One local columnist went so far in her Jeremiad as to proclaim, “This midterm election, where the crop of conservative candidates looks more and more set on a takeover of American government, and promulgating a program of a dissolution of basic human rights, the decline and fall of the Great American Empire is becoming more of a sure thing.”

Anther local columnist today takes aim at the “extremists” by employing one of the most specious and egregious logical errors, the ad hominem fallacy, in an attempt to discredit and cast aspersions on this true grass-roots movement.

In light of such assertions and lunacy, it’s incumbent upon us to be an even more informed and vigilant electorate. And as is usually the case when it comes to mainstream media, we must employ reason and look past the monikers and labels to understand what is being stereotyped as “extremism.”

The “extremists” believe that in a representative republic we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that our elected officials are required to listen to the will of the people. Those in control now believe in their arrogance that, due to their supremely enlightened status, they know what’s best for the people far better than we do; that they don’t have to listen to us and that they can usurp our rights, cramming down our collective throats any and all legislation they see fit to impose on us.

The “extremists” believe that the Constitution purposefully delineates the limited powers of government in order to maximize individual freedom and liberty. Those currently in power believe the Constitution to be irrelevant and they can do whatever they can get away with in imposing governmental restraints upon their subjects.

“Extremists” believe that the nation was founded on liberty and individual freedom, and that the more government intrusion there is in our daily lives the more those freedoms are limited. The statists in control now harbor a nanny state mentality where government should do more in micromanaging our lives, including kinds of light bulbs to use, what kind of cars to drive, how much energy we should consume, what kinds of foods and beverages we should consume, and how we use our own personal property.

The “extremists” believe that the government should be beholden to the same financial restraints that we as individuals are, and that we shouldn’t spend what we don’t have. They believe that it’s illogical to presume that spending three times more than you receive in income or revenue is sustainable and that unrestrained spending threatens to bankrupt the nation and destroy the republic. Those in control now think they have a blank check to spend however much they want on whatever they want.

“Extremists” believe in free market economies, not only because they work, but because they afford the most freedom to hard-working Americans. Those in power now, as evidenced by their actions, believe in government control of the economy and in dictating terms and conditions on all aspects of commercial activity.

“Extremists” believe that Americans have inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And unlike the president who twice in as many weeks has quoted the Declaration of Independence excluding any reference to deity, they believe those rights are granted by our Creator, not by government. The statists in control now believe in the rights of government to control, curtail, eliminate, or create new “rights.”

“Extremists” believe that the fruits of labor belong to the laborer, that what we earn is ours. The powers in Washington believe that our income belongs to them, and they alone should determine how much of it they would allow us to retain.

In short, those who are labeled as “extremists” by the power elitists in Washington and the mainstream media are in reality, just ordinary mainstream Americans who, like Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, believe in this nation and the principles upon which it was founded. The real extremists are those who are seeking to destroy what America has stood for and are attempting to “fundamentally transform” it into something very un-American. The real extremists are the ones in control now!

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

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

Andi Elliott: Do I Understand Allred Correctly???

October 3rd, 2010 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

Do I understand gubernatorial candidate Keith Allred’s ads correctly when he lambastes Governor Otter for balancing our budget as required by law? Doesn’t he know the education budget was cut as an absolute last resort? Did Allred not “do his homework” and know there is an inverse relationship between educational achievement and increased spending? Why doesn’t he speak with Superintendent of Public Instruction Luna who cut his staff by 20%? Does he not know that about 60% of our state revenue goes to education? How much money does he think is appropriate? Does Allred not know that other states send teachers to study some of Idaho’s innovative educational programs?

Allred is against raising taxes, so are we to assume that he simply wants to spend without accountability? Does he not know that unlike Obama, who can print money with reckless abandon, it’s against the law for states to do so?

Does Allred forget that he has a legislative body to work with and that they pass the laws in Idaho? Does Allred realize that he won’t be able to strong arm, threaten, and intimidate Idaho representatives as our Democratic president is noted for doing? Did Allred really say that he is running on the Democratic ticket because they asked him too?

Why does Allred say he’s from Twin Falls when he’s from California? I hope while serving as a Harvard professor that he was not as confusing in his lectures. Does Allred not know that Idahoans are smarter than this?

Andi Elliott
Idaho Falls Tea Party
Hamer

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

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

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