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.


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





Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations

Jerry Sproul, CPA

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: Top Pro-Life Developments of 2010

December 31st, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

As we close another year in the battle to restore protections for human life at all stages of development, it is important to pause – taking time to give thanks, time to reflect on the challenges ahead.

Here is our take on the most important pro-Life developments of 2010. Not all are positive, nor are they necessarily ranked in the correct order – but will prove to be critical moments in the campaign to rebuild a pro-Life social order.

1. The election of a new pro-Life House of Representatives. Without doubt, this is the most important and encouraging news of the year. After suffering two years’ under the combined power of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the pro-Life movement gained much needed strength by the addition of some 52 new pro-Life members to Congress. Hopes are high that we will finally see an end to tax funding of Planned Parenthood – and that effective strategies will be implemented to prevent the federalized health care system from greatly increasing the number of preborn children slaughtered in the womb.

2. Closer to home, we give thanks for the election of Raul Labrador to Congress as one of that new and (hopefully) mighty number of tough reformers. Raul developed a strong pro-Life record while in the Idaho Legislature. We know without doubt that he has a heart to fight this mechanized attack on babies on the womb. What a blessing to have him in Congress rather than the rabid abortion champion, Walt Minnick!

3. We actually made some very important gains in the Idaho Legislature as well through our political action efforts this year. Gone are pro-abort Republicans Gary Schroeder and Chuck Coiner. (Thank you!) All in all, we should be working with the strongest pro-Life legislature in recent memory.

4. We are also most grateful for enactment of a new Conscience Protection Law in Idaho, which became effective this past July. It provides legal safeguards for health care professionals, not just in the area of abortion but in critical end-of-life situations as well. Two years’ worth of hard work went into securing this fundamental protection, but already there is talk by opponents that they will bring amendments in the 2011 Session to “fix” problems with the law. The “Death With Dignity” crowd is very upset over the notion that conscience protections will interfere with their drive to establish physician-assisted suicide in Idaho.

5. Norma McCorvey comes to Idaho. This was a big deal for the pro-Life movement here in the Gem State. For the first time we had a chance to hear from “Jane Roe”, the woman who played a critical role in establishing legalized abortion in America. After years as an ardent supporter of a woman’s right to abort her baby – including a stint actually working in an abortion clinic – the Lord of mercy restored her sanity and brought her to a natural appreciation for Life.

6. Defeat of the Burris Amendment. It was a very difficult story to follow, and the MSM did its job of obscuring this major pro-Life victory – but Planned Parenthood’s obsessive drive to turn military hospitals into abortion mills was finally defeated in the “Lame Duck” session of Congress earlier this month. Obama and pro-abort forces had an extraordinarily “good” legislative run after suffering ignominious rejection by voters in November; but, thankfully, forcing the military into the abortion business is not one of them.

7. Speaking of that historic election: There can be no serious argument that the American people have soundly rejected federalized health care. (Recent polling by Rasmussen puts support for complete repeal of ObamaCare at about 60%). That was the core issue of the mid-term elections, Obama’s spin notwithstanding. Not only does this mean real energy for the drive to stop rationed care and expanded abortion rates – it gives us all hope for a newly reinvigorated Republic.

8. The betrayal of pro-Life principle by Bart Stupak and his Democrat cohorts must be recalled, if only to be mourned. It seems a lifetime ago that the nation watched Stupak repeatedly declare that he would never back in March. While there is hope now that we can retake the ground he yielded to Obama, the sad truth is that Bart Stupak has great responsibility for the fact that we lost said ground in the first place. Had he held his ground, Stupak would have joined the immortals of the American Republic. Instead, he finds himself friendless and without office, burdened by a lifetime to ponder his cowardice.

The coming year will be another of struggle against the systematic destruction of God’s gift. We are hopeful, with your prayers and active involvement, that we will make more progress.
In the meantime, please accept our sincere gratitude and prayers that you and your loved ones enjoy the full measure of God’s goodness in 2011!

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

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

Richard Larsen: About the Separation of Church and State…

December 28th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The most fraudulently and inaccurately used phrase by anti-Christians and the irreligious, secular left is “separation of church and state.” Not only is it not in the Constitution or any of the Amendments, its usage manifests immense ignorance about the statement from Thomas Jefferson from which the phrase derived.

Far from it’s current usage by the left to proscribe public religious expression, whether in the form of public prayers or nativity scenes, Jefferson’s statement advances the notion that religious freedom is so fundamental to our national heritage that it was listed first among our enumerated rights as citizens, along with the freedoms of speech, press, and peaceable assembly. Employing Jefferson’s statement as an argument against public religious express is disingenuous, dishonest, and an abject misrepresentation of his intent.

The phrase is taken from a letter written as a response in 1802 by newly elected President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Massachusetts Baptist association. The irony of the oft-used phrase by Christian antagonists is that through historical revisionism, the phrase is used in exactly the opposite manner in which Jefferson articulated it! To my knowledge, Jefferson never expressed concern about public religiosity, but he was concerned with government control of religion.

The Danbury Baptists’ letter, signed by three ministers, expressed concerns with the wording of the Constitution and the first Amendment as it related to religion, and sought Jefferson’s clarification of legislative intent behind the wording. The ministers said, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty–that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals–that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions–that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors…”

Their explicitly stated concern was regarding freedom of religion from the powers of government. In response, President Jefferson attempted to allay their fears by declaring, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Jefferson’s response was to alleviate the ministers’ fears of government intrusion or attempted control of religion. As articulated, Jefferson’s response reflected his conviction of the limited control of government; that government should not meddle in the affairs of people and their culture, but people and culture can meddle in the affairs of government. Indeed this is the backbone of our republic, people shaping the direction of our government, not the reverse. And the notion that we must strip ourselves of our most ardently and tenaciously held beliefs in order to shape the affairs of state is not only ludicrous, but is unconstitutional and contrary to Jefferson’s and the other Founding Fathers’ intent!

We no longer have a nation that exercises freedom of religion. The power of the government, initially promised to not meddle in the free exercise thereof, is now enforcing a “religion” of the left, a secular humanism on the entire country. What was a bedrock freedom, supported and espoused by the Founding Fathers, is now trampled as the ACLU and other anti-religious entities suppress specifically Christian public displays, nondenominational prayers, and any semblance of religious freedom.

In direct contradistinction with what Jefferson intended, we now have government (primarily the judicial system) forcing itself on the religious community. They repress and coerce and intimidate Christian public displays of religiosity into the underground, exercising the very power over religion that Jefferson denounced and promised would not be exercised! Instead of Jefferson’s promised freedom of religious expression, we have enforced secularism and multiculturalism at the expense of Christian freedom of religion. In short, the government is doing precisely what Jefferson avowed it would not, and the argument in support of such intervention is the dishonest, twisted, and convoluted representation of Jefferson’s own words. What was intended as a limitation on government, is now implemented against individuals and groups of individuals.

So the next time someone tries to use “separation of church and state” as the basis for forcing religious expressions or displays out of the public square, you can correct their perversion of Jefferson’s words. His words, as now used against any public religiosity, are twisted 180 degrees by a small minority intent on repressing freedom of religion.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Intolerance by Those Professing Tolerance

December 21st, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

An ISU student claiming membership in a group he founded, Atheists and Agnostics for Religious Tolerance, is attempting to prevent the Pocatello City Council from starting its meetings with a nondenominational prayer. It’s obvious that he is oblivious to the rich irony of his actions in direct conflict with that “tolerance” he professes with his group.

As a product of Idaho State University’s superb educational system, I can attest to the fact that his ignorance is not because of, but rather in spite of his ISU association. By the time one gets to college you’d think they would know that to “tolerate” means to “allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference or to accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance,” according to the New Oxford American Dictionary.

If it says anything about ISU, it is that they are tolerant to grant admission to intolerant individuals who know nothing of history, our Constitution, tolerance, and have no respect for tradition.

There is a segment of our population that has this convoluted notion that our First Amendment rights can only be interpreted through the narrow prism of their gestalt, or world view. For such individuals, freedom of religion can only be exercised by those who conform with their concept of religion, or lack thereof. Freedom of speech can only be exercised if it conforms with their ideology, and all other voices are to be excluded. Such a perspective is not only antithetical to our history as a republic, but antithetical to the Founding Fathers’ conviction that these are inalienable rights for all Americans to enjoy. Adherents to this perverted logic reject the fundamental right of all Americans to worship or speak freely, even publicly, and rather advance a fascistic concept of tyranny of the minority by imposing their views on all others to the exclusion of all others’ individual liberties!

John Adams once declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It seems logical that extirpation of all religious elements in our culture is a threat to the very fabric of our existence as a nation.

Perhaps this student could elucidate for us how his rights are abrogated by such a public prayer. Perhaps he could show us, or explicate for our enlightenment, how he is hurt, harmed, maligned, or deprived of his rights by such an act. If he is deprived of his rights, something needs remedying. But there is no such evidence here, especially since he doesn’t even attend the city council meetings! He has merely been studying recordings of them! How superficial, contrived, and misguided is that?

Our Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Too many in our society focus strictly on the establishment clause ostensibly forgetting altogether the free exercise clause. Or perhaps they’re aware of it, but they think that it only applies to minority religious groups. Certainly, from their perspective, Christians are not to be allowed free exercise. Someone might be offended if we show our Christianity as a nation.

Tolerance, for some reason, seems to be expected from Christians, but not others. We must be willing to tolerate secularism hijacking our holy days, aberrant sexual parades in our streets, and extend the freedom of religious expression that Christians are disallowed by the secular minority. Tolerance, in other words, is not a universal quality to be expected from all since the small minority has absolutely none for Christians. The result is extreme intolerance towards Christians from people who talk so much about tolerating all views and religions.

Ignorance of the Constitution, overly zealous courts, and the ACLU have somehow been able to intimidate the majority of us into submission as we continue to see the erosion of public vestiges of our Christian heritage gradually, yet forcibly removed from our culture. Those who “choke at a gnat,” the open celebration of the Christian faith, are typically the same who “swallow a camel,” demanding tolerance of everyone but themselves. From their perspective, their version of “tolerance” is constitutionally protected, but all others’ is not. Transvestite parades are constitutionally protected, but nativity scenes are not.

When approached logically, rather than with a chip on one’s shoulder, a public prayer or a public Nativity Scene do nothing to “establish” a state religion, but are simply free religious expressions. And tolerance is something to be exercised by all, even the minority in a mostly Christian culture, not just the majority. With that, I voice my freedom of expression and religion by proclaiming “Merry Christmas” to all, and “God bless us everyone,” which is no more an infringement of the establishment clause of the First Amendment than the city council’s prayer is.

Award-winning columnist Richard Larsen of Pocatello is president of the brokerage firm Larsen Financial. He graduated from Idaho State University with degrees in history and political science.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Unconstitutional (Illegal?) Government Spending

December 14th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

While discussing the recently passed health-care reform legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the Constitution the Congress derives or is granted the power to do what they were attempting. Her response speaks volumes about the current breed of public leaders we have in Washington. She infamously and incredulously responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

The United States is a country of laws, and the primary codex upon which those laws are founded are embodied in the Constitution. That document clearly explicates and delineates the minimal authority of a central or federal government, and whatever rights of government not identified in the Constitution were reserved unto the states or the citizens collectively. That’s very clear, one would think. Yet over the past 230 years our central government has unilaterally enacted much more power over us than the Constitution ever granted them.

The case could be strongly made that our government at all levels is operating outside the parameters of the Constitution. This flagrant abuse of power is at the base of nearly all of our nations’ current problems, including taxation, deficits, massive federal debt, moribund economic growth, high unemployment, etc. ad nauseam.

Where does Congress get the money it so freely dispenses and appropriates around the world? Speaker Pelosi might think, as the political cartoon showed the other day, that such money, along with jobs, comes from the “stork who brings them on a government funded jet.” But that would be inaccurate. Rather, for Congress to give one dollar to any individual, it has to forcibly through the tax code, take that dollar from another. As Dr. Walter E. Williams, economics professor at George Mason University clarifies, “Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership and is immoral,” as well as unconstitutional.

We all know that it’s a good idea to grant assistance to people out of work, or to provide financial help to the underprivileged, or to rebuild nations that we declare war on. But where does the Constitution grant authority to enact good ideas?

I’m sure there are some who are crying out while reading this that it is the government’s job to do these things. I would ask, as the CNS News reporter asked Pelosi, “Where in the Constitution is that authority granted?” After all, what is the oath taken by our elected leaders when they’re sworn into office? As Dr. Williams asks, “Is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?”

Colonel Davy Crockett, while serving as a member of Congress, once spoke in opposition to a bill to grant financial support to the widow of a military hero. Said he at the time, “Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” What Congressman Crockett recognized as a constitutional, legal as well as moral limitation of government, and the fiduciary responsibility of government for the interest of the people, is no longer found in the Beltway.

In 1794 when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some refugees, James Madison declared on the floor of the House, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Obviously Mr. Madison understood the moral and fiduciary role congress is supposed to fulfill.

He went on, seemingly in answer to those who would say the section in the Constitution that says to “promote the general welfare” of the country is where that authority comes from. In response to the unspoken question, he continued, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

And clearly we have an indefinite one now. Congress has for years ignored the precise limitations of power enumerated in our Constitution, and vote for “good ideas” rather than what is legal and constitutional. What we need now is a whole new mindset in Washington, Boise, and even city hall, where elected leaders acknowledge the fiduciary responsibility they hold for us collectively, and spend not for “every good idea” that comes around, but for those that are legal at their respective levels of governance. As the Deficit Reduction Commission illustrated, it’s painful to turn back the clock on spending, yet that is precisely what we must do.

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

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

David Ripley: Ted Turner, Sanger and the Left’s View of Humanity

December 9th, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

A disturbing, if fascinating, article was published this week by the Weekly Standard. Jonathan Last wrote “Ted, Teddy and the Natalist Impulse”, and keyed off a public pronouncement by Ted Turner. One of the last defenders of “Global Warming” – Turner traveled to Cancun to offer his sage insight into what needs to be done to save “Mother Earth”.
As with many leftists, Turner’s prescription hangs on the elimination of human beings. Specifically, his grand idea is to create a world-wide market, whereby rich white folks like Turner could buy “fertility rights”. Blacks and Hispanics in underdeveloped parts of the world – who keep making too many children – could make some money by foregoing their privilege of having children. Presumably Turner would want to guarantee fewer children by requiring those doing the selling to undergo sterilization.

This kind of elitist social vision is straight out of some Nazi handbook. Oh – it is cloaked in “love for the environment” and “saving the planet”. But beneath the surface is a very disturbing view of humanity. A view which has its roots in the kind of “progressive” social order first, and most loudly, articulated by Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood.

Her progeny pretend to run from Sanger’s world view because it has become politically incorrect to defend eugenics; however, it is now clearly acceptable to push for the “cleansing” of humanity if it is cloaked in the language of environmentalism.

To put Turner’s dark radicalism in perspective, Mr. Last included quotes from one of America’s greatest historical figures, Teddy Roosevelt, on the great blessing of bearing children:

“Finally, even more important than the ability to work, even more important than the ability to fight is to remember that the chief of blessings for any nation is to leave its seed to inherit the land …. The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility.”

It may surprise the reader to learn that Teddy Roosevelt, a “progressive” often heralded as the first environmental president, would offer such strong opinions on a modern problem. But he lived at a time when eugenics and social engineering were first becoming “respectable”. Roosevelt was well-acquainted with people like Margaret Sanger and her war on the womb.

Ted Turner’s hubris and smug elitism is patently detestable. But we cannot afford to simply dismiss him as a leftist crackpot. It must be firmly and vigorously confronted, for he speaks for many powerful individuals and organizations working their agenda today.

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

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

Richard Larsen: PC Police Going Overboard in Pocatello

December 8th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The sagacious Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.” The most efficacious means of voluntarily giving others complete control over us is by allowing them to offend us. The old truism “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me,” evinces the conviction that individually we have the power to allow others to “offend” us, or the discipline and maturity to not allow others that control over us. We choose, individually, whether to grant that power to another.

Sometimes, there are those amongst us who take offense for us. We didn’t give them that power to speak for us, nor did we lose our own voices in our defense, yet they assume the role of guardian of the public, usually for presumed victims of society. They perambulate through life with a massive chip on their shoulder just waiting, even daring, for someone to come along and knock it off so they can manifest immense righteous indignation at the insensitivity of those who may have even inadvertently knocked the chip off their shoulder.

We saw something like this a few months ago when Ines Sainz, an attractive female sports reporter, was the “victim” of cat calls and unsolicited advances by players and staff for the New York Jets. Ms. Sainz saw no harm in it. “It’s no big deal,” she said later. Yet there was someone there who did take offense and presumed to speak for Ms. Sainz in denouncing the team’s conduct. Obviously, Ms. Sainz is secure enough emotionally and psychologically that she didn’t feel threatened by the “sexist” antics of the overpaid adolescents of the Jets team. It was “no big deal” to her.

We had a similar situation here locally. Ralph Lillig was helping with several others working the elections and explained how he had a hard time deciding which armed forces football team to cheer for since he had served in all four branches of the military. That led contextually to a quip he’d heard from an elderly black gentleman in South Los Angeles about how Father’s Day is difficult for many of his race since they don’t know who their fathers were.

After the possible insensitivity of the remark was brought to his attention, Mr. Lillig subsequently went out of his way to apologize to all who could have been possibly offended by his remark. Yet to a few, this was not sufficient. They were resolute in not accepting the apology, even though some weren’t even there at the time, because the “chip” had been knocked off their shoulders and they resolved to make of Mr. Lillig an example. Rather than using a retold joke as a quiet teaching opportunity, the self-anointed “PC Police” took umbrage, never really accepted the apology, and sought to make an example of him. Interestingly, his attackers, who ostentatiously proclaim their roles with “Too Great To Hate,” hypocritically violated most of their own tenets they proclaim self-righteously to have pledged.

This incident was not about suppressing “hate speech,” this was about public humiliation for political purposes. You can be darned sure they wouldn’t have done to “one of their own” what they have done to Mr. Lillig!

Interestingly, Bill Cosby has been on a veritable soapbox about this same issue over the past decade. Many of his jokes and much of his book, “Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors,” address the underlying problem. True, it’s no laughing matter, but isn’t part of solving problems as adults having the courage and maturity to talk about them, even jokingly? Ford Chairman Alan Mulally has turned the “Found On Road Dead” and “Fix Or Repair Daily” jokes about Ford on their heads by creating an atmosphere of openness in his company where they can talk about the issues, even joke about them, in order to solve them. They are now manufacturing superior quality vehicles.

No wonder Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, has said “We’re a nation of cowards” when it comes to race issues. We can’t really talk about it, even tongue-in-cheek, without some thin-skinned ideologue assuming the role of PC Police coming unglued and crying “Hate Speech!” with no attempt at civil discussion or debate.

We have no control over what others say about us. We can only control our own attitudes and what we think, say, and do. In a country where freedom of speech is sacrosanct, we solve these underlying issues through openness and dialogue, not by suppression. But to surmount our “cowardice” in addressing sensitive social issues, we have to all increase the thickness of our own hides and talk about them, otherwise they remain under the surface, unresolved, and in perpetual limbo.

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

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

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood and the Cancer Industry

December 7th, 2010 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

There can be no serious debate about the fact that we live in strange times. Illogical, sometimes troubling days.
Let us consider the fact that the Komen Foundation provides substantial funding to Planned Parenthood as part of its campaign to prevent cancer. In fact, the Idaho affiliate of the Susan G. Komen organization announced in October that it was distributing some $525,000 in grants to local health care groups – including Idaho Planned Parenthood.
That may strike some readers as a nice thing.
But consider the indisputable linkage between rising cancer rates among American women and the 2 primary “products” hawked by Planned Parenthood: birth control and abortion.
We have talked about growing research linking abortion and breast cancer. Many blind devotees of the women’s “liberation” movement simply cannot get their minds and heart around that data. And it that is true – imagine their hostility to the mountain of data proving that birth control pills dramatically increase a woman’s risk of contracting a host of deadly cancers – breast, cervical and liver.
Doesn’t it seem strange that the flagship organization of cancer “prevention” is funding the nation’s largest cancer retailer?
But perhaps you are not convinced that the Pill has anything to do with cancer.
A detailed discussion of existing research was published by the Washington Times on November 27th. Among the facts which warrant loud and repeated publicity:
The deadly hormones contained in birth control regimes have been identified as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research for Cancer – a research arm of the World Health Organization; right besides well-known killers as asbestos and cigarettes.
Recent studies have found that a woman who uses birth control pills for four years prior to a pregnancy may increase her risk of breast cancer by some 52%.
What makes this matter even more urgent is President Obama’s drive to dramatically increase funding for Planned Parenthood and its “pop-the-pill” crusade. That is public tax money. And it may well be money being used to (literally) destroy the lives of our sisters, mothers, wives and daughters.
(Imagine, if you can, a Congressional program to distribute free packs of cigarettes to girls in American high schools).
Will the new Congress have the guts to hold hearings on the health threats posed by the Pill? And the federal government’s role in foisting Planned Parenthood’s agenda on our families?
Normally one cannot put much hope in Congress taking the high moral ground – especially when faced with the wrath of the Feminist Movement. However, there is some hope that the new pro-Life majority will take action to end Title X, if only to help patch together a solution to our deficit crisis.

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

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

Bob Webster: The Three Faces of Islam

December 6th, 2010 by Halli

By Bob Webster

I recently emailed to an associate some actual media clips of Obama commenting on his Muslim faith, to which the associate requested that I “stop the hate mail” on Obama, and just accept him as our duly elected president and let him live out his term.

First, I have seen BO-BS’s (Barack Obama-Barry Soetoro) actual Kenyan birth certificate; he is not an American citizen, and has no Constitutional right to run for any public office in America.

Second, I looked up some information online about Islam, Muslims, Mohammed, jihad, infidels, etc, to clarify my understanding of BO-BS’s treasured Muslim faith and culture. I invite all to do the same. Here is my brief summary of these topics – to date.

THE THREE FACES OF ISLAM: 1 – Religion; 2 – Peaceful Islam; 3 – Violent Islam

Face #1 The Islam Religion:
Monotheism – Islam believes in one true God (Allah) and no other. Allah has no body or parts to see or touch, was not created nor has engendered offspring. Islam means, surrender of self to Allah’s will – worship of Allah only. He has given his instructions to men through a series of individual prophets: Adam; Noah; Abraham; Jesus and Mohammed (570 – 632 AD). Islam is the religion given to Adam. Mohammed is the final and only viable prophet to man today, who memorized God’s words to him, and taught them to others, who gradually wrote them down; those writings are the infallible Qur’an / Koran, including the practical doctrine of the Five Pillars of Islam: 1- Belief in the one True God/ Allah; 2- Belief in the Angels; 3 – Belief in the Book (al-Qur’an); 4 – Belief in Allah’s Prophets (and messengers); 5 – Belief in Judgment Day and Resurrection; and a 6th one – Belief in Fate.
Muslims believe that their God is the same God as the Hebrew/Christian God, but do not accept the Christian concept of a Trinity God (polytheism). Muslims reject all use of physical images in worship as idolatry. The most accepted infallible Qur’an today is the 1923 text prepared by the Cairo University Committee. Allah’s revelations to Moses and Jesus were adulterated, and Mohammed then received the true religion to correct the corruption. Bible truths have been misinterpreted, and Mohammed clarifies it all..
Modern Israelites and Christians are considered as degenerate breakoffs from true Islam, but are tolerated as “people of the book,” within the general faith of Abraham, because they believe in the prophets before Mohammed, and are also considered monotheistic religions, as contrasted to some polytheistic faiths around the earth. The Qur’an provides special status to “people of the book” living within Muslim areas, though not full Muslim citizen status Several sub-culture sects of Islam exist, with varying degrees of interpretation and practice of Islamic doctrine. Islam believes in a glorious resurrected life after mortality, for true Muslims. Only Muslims may enter their holy places of worship.

Islam is an all encompassing life culture that incorporates all personal, home, political, educational and business aspects of daily life. Routine daily prayers, and monthly fasts are expected to be observed by all. Any person may join Islam without any ritual of entry, merely by living the teachings of Mohammed faithfully. There are no pre-requisite conditions, such as baptism, or worship of any man (Jesus), nor any centralized priesthood authority to pass judgment on who is a worthy, practicing Muslim. A person decides that for himself.

Allah created Adam, and all children naturally believe in Allah, but their parents teach them false religions, for which Allah does not hold them accountable. Honest people accept Allah and reject false religions. Allah sent prophets to all nations, but people have distorted their teachings into false religions, with remnants of truth , eg 10 commandments. Every soul is accountable to Allah for his belief.

Face #2 – Peaceful Islam.
Mohammed’s basic teachings call for a tolerant, kind, generous and peaceful life style, avoiding offences; jihad is simply defined as a normal conflict in life to be overcome patiently and peaceably. The label of “infidel” is given to non-believers, such as polytheistic faiths. Only in drastic circumstances, such as Noah’s Flood, were the infidels eliminated, and that by Allah himself. Mohammed received his first vision in 611 AD at age 40 – a visit from Angel Gabriel, who dictated true doctrine to him in Arabic. Mohammed preached strict monotheism, and a judgment day; he did not fully reject Judaism or Christianity, but claimed to perfect them in peace and tolerance. By his death, he had unified Arabia and was spreading northward into Syria and Palestine. His biography was written 130 years after his death. Islamic culture is strictly male-dominant, with women subservient.

Islam is the world’s second largest religion, and the fastest growing.

Face #3 – Violent Islam.
Dominant male aggressors emerge as warrior-lords, who employ militant force to subdue and conquer other groups, particularly non-Islamic people. A knife or sword is the weapon of choice. They believe that it is Islam’s destiny to destroy all non-Muslims as infidels, and to conquer the world by force, and that to die in Allah’s service is their noblest act, yielding the highest eternal rewards hereafter. To them, Jihad is “holy war,” and is directed at Christians and Jews, as well as other non-Muslim infidels. Its goal is WORLD POWER. They pride themselves in violence, including the displaying of victim’s severed body appendages (hands, feet, heads) as tokens of their conviction. This political force is opposite to the principles of peace that Mohammed taught, yet is a serious political-military force to deal with.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Government Control of Information

December 6th, 2010 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Last May President Obama declared in a speech to graduates at Hampton University that information is a threat to democracy. He shockingly stated, “With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a means of emancipation. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Logically the statement is counterintuitive. Information is liberating, and the free-flow of information is the ultimate validation of our First Amendment rights of free speech. For those of us who are wary of the Obama statist agenda, such a statement is ominous. Parenthetically, when I refer to statism, it is Ayn Rand’s definition I employ which maintains “that man’s life and work belong to the state, and that it may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

The only logical way that “too much information” is a “threat to our democracy” is if the masses have been taught what to think, and not how to think. In this context, information not conforming to the administration’s objectives can have a dampening effect on their agenda. The president has, over the past couple of years, made clear what he thinks of such nonconformist entities, like Fox News and talk radio personalities. The logical ancillary to the president’s statement is, you can’t have too much information if it’s the right kind (or left kind, if speaking politically) of information; you can only have too much information if it is nonconforming.

Information is the basis for acquiring knowledge and consequently is liberating. Information only loses its liberating power if it’s censored, controlled and manipulated. Even the radical activist Robin Morgan recognized that verity when she said, “Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.”

George Orwell characterized the president’s concept of approved, proper, or qualifying information as “Newspeak.” Used efficaciously as a paradigm through which to study Soviet Phraseology, Newspeak serves the interests of a totalitarian regime which seeks to curtail or eliminate alternative thinking by characterizing it as “thoughtcrimes” or “crimethink.” Those who are supportive of hate crime legislation, for example, subscribe to this forced compliance with official state doctrine by proscribing certain language and enforcing compliance.

Many of us who are ardent supporters of freedom of speech, the antithesis of “Newspeak,” have been observing with great apprehension the development of the Federal Communications Commission doctrine of “Net Neutrality.” The name itself sounds innocuous, but the title conceals not only economically destructive repercussions, but opens the way for eventual governmental control of the Internet. Remember, a critical component of fascism is government control over the means of production and the dissemination of information. Such proposed control is antithetical to our constitutional rights and an affront to our civil liberties.

The Center for Individual Freedom has said of the government’s proposed control, “Instead of an open Internet in which competing service providers and wireless carriers remain free to experiment with alternative models, Net Neutrality would for the first time impose regulatory control on one of the few flourishing sectors in our current economy. For instance, carriers would suddenly be prohibited from offering differentiated services, prioritization and other innovative methods to address the problem of bandwidth constraint…Net Neutrality would stifle incentives to continue investment to meet future traffic growth. It would take an Internet that has flourished since its inception precisely because it remained free of bureaucratic control, and dictate operating methods and business models for the first time.” In other words, Net Neutrality is a pseudonym for Net Control.

The DC Circuit Court has already ruled that the FCC lacks the requisite authorization from Congress to regulate the internet, but Obama’s FCC is intent on declaring autonomously that they can exercise such control with a vote scheduled for February.

Most media analysts have warned that the enactment of Net Neutrality is the first step in regulatory control over Internet content, equivalent to what the Fairness Doctrine did to broadcast media. Repeal of that restrictive regulation directly benefited freedom of speech by enabling the emergence and proliferation of AM talk radio. John C. Dvorak has said, “By redefining information services to telecommunications services, the Internet as we know it will be neutered as the FCC begins to crack down on whatever content it sees fit to proscribe.”

This all brings to mind the wisdom of James Madison, considered the “Father” to our Constitution, who said, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

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

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

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