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!

Richard Larsen: Health Care Not First Law to Face Nullification

February 14th, 2011 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

For some, the mere utterance of the word “nullification” conjures up images of voodoo incantations to exorcize evil spirits, or of “Gomers running around the block yelling ‘Citizen’s arrest.’” For some inexplicable reason, such images were never invoked when California, and 13 other states, through nullification, established their own marijuana laws to override federal laws, or when 25 states, through nullification, invalidated the Real ID Act just three years ago. Apparently the concept of nullification is just fine when it suits their ideological purposes, but heaven forbid when it doesn’t!
There are now 27 states, including Idaho, challenging Obamacare, 12 of which are pursuing the nullification route. Nullification is a doctrine that states can invalidate federal laws deemed unconstitutional.

There are several components to nullification that are critical to understand. The first is to understand the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Article VI Clause 2 asserts that treaties and laws established by congress are the “Supreme Law of the Land.” The pertinent portion of the clause reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” There is a critical qualifier in that statement, “in pursuance thereof.” This qualifier makes clear that such laws passed by Congress are only the supreme law of the land if they are in accordance with the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. In other words, federal law is supreme over conflicting state statutes only insofar as congressional actions are constitutional.

Taking this one step further, as Thomas E. Woods in his book “Nullification” explains, “Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: if a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it…Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.“

The states, as parties to the “federal compact” have the authority to invalidate federal mandates as granted by the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since the powers granted the federal government are specified in the Constitution, hence qualifying them as “enumerated powers,” all other rights are held by the states or the people.

Courts can declare laws unconstitutional, but the states can too. It’s illogical to presume that the federal judiciary, which obviously is a component of the federal government, is the sole and ultimate arbiter of what is constitutionally allowable by the federal government. Nullification in essence is the states’ refusal to enforce and implement unconstitutional laws.

As Woods explains,” Since the federal courts are themselves a branch of the federal government, how can the people be expected to consider them impartial arbiters?..So in a dispute between the states and the federal government, the resolution is to come from …the federal government?”

Thomas Jefferson understood this dilemma, which is why he said, “every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory ‘all assumptions of power by others’—i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.” Although most such disputes wend their way to the Supreme Court, states have not abrogated their authority to resist federal mandates, and last I checked, the Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment, has not been repealed.

California has done this very thing in regard to the growth, sale, distribution, and use of marijuana for “medicinal” purposes. In direct violation of federal law, California has rejected federal mandates on the subject and flaunts their independence by ensuring the feds can’t invoke interstate commerce restrictions.

In 2005 congress passed the Real ID Act, which was intended as a security and identification measure. The law has been denounced by 25 states, refusing to implement it because of concerns over privacy and funding. The “law” is still on the books of the Federal Registry, yet implementation has been postponed numerous times because of the significant state resistance. In essence, the law is “null and void” due to state refusal to implement it.

To allow the federal government complete autonomy in implementation of any legislation according to their whims, regardless of constitutional authority, is to acquiesce to unmitigated tyranny. Federal mandates must be kept in check by the states, per their constitutional authority, and the “consent of the governed,” us!

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Next Target – America!

February 13th, 2011 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

Next target…America! Multiculturism has failed…and this is according to some of our world leaders. Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Australia…all have declared their efforts to incorporate “multiculturism” as an abject failure that is leading to the destruction of their country. They, as the United States is in the process of doing, have been too concerned with the feelings of those immigrating into their country and have not focused on those already there. Far too many are not assimilating and have formed their own “mini-country” far from their country of origin. Doesn’t it make you wonder why they didn’t stay home?

For example, the accommodations made for Islam by many countries have resulted in open claims by Muslims that they are dedicated to taking over the country and imposing their own religion and system of laws…a system dating back to the 600’s that reflects few if any peaceful periods. Was I the only one bothered when after the election of Obama that on the CAIR (the Council of American Islamic Relations) webpage in very large letters the following was stated: OUR TIME HAS COME. What do you think that meant?

And, did you know that AIG used more than “$100 million in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Shariah-compliant financing. … SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law”. The Islamic Valley website lists mosques in Idaho. Just how stupid are we? Maybe being ethnocentric isn’t such a bad idea after all.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Time for Education Reform

February 9th, 2011 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Sounding the call for education reform, several notable organizations have courageously weighed in on the much-needed repair of our arguably broken educational system. The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, The Idaho Business Coalition for Education Excellence, the Boise Chamber of Commerce, and Melaleuca Inc. are calling for a renaissance of Idaho education. Most notably, the J.A and Kathryn Albertson Foundation has explicitly called for reform.
The Albertson Foundation proclaimed in a full-page ad in last Sunday’s Idaho State Journal, “For the first time in our history as a supporter of Idaho’s education system, we are compelled to sound the alarm – loudly and widely. Given the current economic climate and our poor position in the global workforce, the status quo is not an option and will only harm Idaho.”

They continued, “We don’t take this stand in support of the Governor and the State Department’s education plan lightly. As a friend and supporter of education we wade into this issue circumspectly, but we wade in nonetheless. The reform efforts we’ve funded have not worked, have had limited impact, or were never systemically adopted. At all levels and repeatedly, we’ve met with political indecision, territorialism, and a lack of political will. The historical focus on barriers, challenges, excuses and maintaining the status quo permeates our education system and stakeholder groups.”

Our educational system is not producing the results required to meet the needs of an increasingly global workforce, where Idaho school children are prepared to compete with kids around the world. The Albertson Foundation cited some disturbing data to illustrate. “Only 1 in 4 high school graduates is deemed college ready, and many will require remediation after high school. (ACT Profile Report, Idaho Graduating Class, 2009) Idaho is in the bottom 10 states for college-going rates and dead last in the nation for our postsecondary retention rates. (National Information Center for Higher Education Policy and Analysis). In the future, most jobs will be either for highly skilled workers or the low-skilled working poor. Our system prepares students for the latter. (Lumina Foundation, Increasing College Success: The Economic Imperative). By 2018, 61% of jobs in Idaho will require postsecondary credentials. 146,000 skilled jobs will be waiting, but Idaho students are not on track to be qualified to fill them. (Lumina Foundation, A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education, Sept. 2010, Idaho Profile).”

More money or continued funding at current levels is not the answer. As the Albertson Foundation, which has invested over $400 million into Idaho schools, declared, “While money matters, it is NOT the solution. Now is the time, while resources are scarce, to end inefficiencies, remove contractual roadblocks, incentivize collaboration and results, and get rid of policies that perpetuate silos, territorialism, and the duplication of services.”

As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We’ve been doing the same thing over and over again with our educational system, even pumping more and more money into it, while expecting different results than we’ve been achieving. It’s time for a paradigm shift where we think differently and enact a system that produces different results. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna’s plan seems to do just that. It challenges the status quo which means we’ll be excoriated by cries from the special interest groups, primarily the teacher’s union, over how devastating it is.

That raises a critical point about unions. Their primary objective is not superior end-product results, but rather union jobs. United Auto Workers’ primary goal is not to produce quality vehicles any more than the Idaho Education Association’s primary goal is to produce well-educated children. Their primary objectives are teacher jobs, contracts, and benefits which may have an affect on our children’s academic performance and job preparedness, but have proven to be causally impotent. After all, look at the results.

Alan Mulally, President of Ford Motor, refused a government bailout. He changed policy, implemented a paradigm shift that challenged the UAW and the status quo, changed policies and the culture within Ford, and now produces some of the best automobiles in the world. He did that with less, having not taken the proffered bailout, and produced exceptional results.

Tom Luna’s plan offers a similar opportunity for retooling our education system to reshape results, as Alan Mulally’s changes at Ford yielded superior end products.

The Albertson Foundation ad concludes, “We can either choose to support education reform, or the choice will be made for us when we can no longer supply innovators or a workforce capable of fueling a vibrant, innovative and globally focused Idaho economy.” Is Luna’s plan the elixir to all that ails our schools? Perhaps not, but it’s a start. What we have is not working. And just like in investing, throwing good money after bad is illogical.

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

Posted in Education, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Pocatello Issues | No Comments »

Rep. Tom Loertscher: House Highlights, February 7

February 7th, 2011 by Halli

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

The other night I decided it was time get a haircut. As it usually happens a conversation breaks out between the haircutter and the client. Noticing that I was from out of town, she asked where I was from. I told her that I was from Eastern Idaho and she told me that she had never been east of Pocatello. She then asked me what brought me to Boise. I said, “Oh, I am one of those people that you may love to hate.” She then asked, “Are you a senator?”

The preliminary revenue numbers for January are in and they indicate that we are up slightly from our projection at the end of last session. Even though that is the case there are still some fairly large holes in our budget. The budget still seems to dominate our conversation. The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee is seeking input from the various committees about the department budgets. It’s interesting that even during these tight economic times some of the departments continue to ask for increases and new line
items in their budgets. To the governor’s credit he has eliminated most of those line items in his budget request to the legislature.

There have been a couple of controversial bills introduced in the State Affairs Committee. One is known as the Nullification Bill and the other is the Telecommunications Bill. We are anticipating a very large crowd to come on Wednesday for the Nullification Bill and are making preparations for the hearing to be held in the auditorium on the Senate side of the capital. Some are concerned that our taking action of this kind, especially after our court case about national health care legislation was declared to be completely unconstitutional, could be detrimental to our case. And as usual we are hearing from attorneys on both sides of this issue, one of them being the state Attorney General. It will be extremely interesting to see what the hearing provides in the way of good solid information for the committee.

As for telecommunications, that is a very long ongoing discussion that has been going on for several years between the various telecom companies and the cities. Some of the companies want us to change the law so that there is a statewide franchising system which would only require them to have to negotiate one contract for the whole state. As you can imagine our e-mail boxes have been filling up with comments from several of the cities. I think the members of the committee are taking a wait and see approach to see if some of the differences can be ironed out between the various parties concerned.

It seems that around here, as it is down on the farm, that sometimes the simple stuff is overlooked on the way to the solution to problems. The heater in the Suburban went on the blink and that was my weekend project. We tried everything, replacing the controls, tearing out the dash and checking the fan motor, checking all electrical connections and checking all the relays. It turned out to be a simple ground wire fault. Something so simple but so time consuming to solve. This may not be exactly how it works around here, but I have to think that there mig

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed be simpler solutions to solve our budget woes this year. Maybe this is just another one of those things that we love to hate.

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Rep. Tom Loertscher, Taxes | No Comments »

Bob Webster: Creation vs. Evolution – Chapter One

February 7th, 2011 by Halli

By Bob Webster

What is Truth?

Many people say there is a conflict between science and religion. There should not be, but there certainly is. True Religion is in conflict with both False Religion and False Science. Likewise, True Science finds itself in conflict with False Science and False Religion. The only two in harmony with each other are True Religion and True Science. Not even False Religion and False Science are in agreement with each other. This unhappy porridge of conflict might be diagramed as follows:

True Religion False Religion
True Science False Science

It is no wonder people are confused, when they are being confronted by all four positions, each claiming to represent “the truth.”

One incorrect assumption that people make is thinking that all parties honestly desire the truth. History shows that most people prefer to be socially accepted than be right. They will accept the position of the popular majority rather than be right, or fair, or good. Seldom have the majority, as a mass of society, accepted the truth if it was not socially popular. Rarely has more than a minority adhered to the truth.

Even more noticeable is the reality that the majority group is seldom content to allow the minority to believe as they wish. Majorities usually seem determined to persecute the minority in an effort to force it into social compliance with the majority. Usually, determined minority dissenters have been treated as “enemies of society,” to be done away with. The “natural man” tends to act that way.

On earth today, False Religion and False Science dominate the beliefs of the majority of people. There is a reason for this condition, a reason which only True Religion can adequately explain.

Pontius Pilate was not the only person to ask the penetrating question, “What is truth?” (Jn.18:38). Joseph Smith, the Latter-Day prophet, also ventured to ask. But whereas Pilate received no answer directly from the Savior, the youthful Joseph did, by revelation, providing the world with this eternal definition:
“Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were and as they are yet to be.” (D&C 93:24)
Before you continue, repeat that definition to yourself another time or two.

You may have heard the philosophical argument that, if several people witness an identical event, such as an automobile collision, that non of their testimonies will agree exactly. Therefore, the argument concludes, there is no absolute truth. In this same manner, some critics dispute the Bible, concluding that, since there is no absolute agreement in the accounts of the various Bible writers. There is no truth … hence no God.

In every field of interest, including science and religion, there seems to be a driving passion to declare that there is no God. But the truth is, there is a God/Creator. And even though several eye witnesses may give varied accounts from their varied viewpoints, God knows the event did occur, and how, and why. Whether it was an automobile collision, or an event in your personal life, God knows the truth of it totally. When we consider that Bible records have survived centuries of efforts to copy, compile and translate them into many languages, it is no wonder that modern readers in different cultures and languages differ in their interpretations and understanding of the same passages of scripture (Before continuing, please read I Ne. 13:26; and II Ne 29:3-10).

TRUTH IS TRUTH regardless of the source. Truth doesn’t depend on haw many believe or disbelieve it. Truth does not contradict itself. It can’t. When God says He created the earth, that’s the truth, and there is no other acceptable explanation. All truth originates from God, and it may be discovered to man’s satisfaction.

Consequently, both the scientific method for discovering truth, and pure faith – the religious method for receiving revealed truth, will yield the same result – TRUTH. If the Creator considers certain information appropriate for man to know, He can make it available for man to discover or receive by the appropriate method. Truth does not vary according to the perceptions and descriptions of the observer. Truth exists! Only the observers’ perceptions and descriptions may vary. It is up to the observer to bring himself into harmony with the truth, to accurately identify it, and then to conform to its reality.

Ever since the Fall of Adam, man has been divided in his belief by a dual nature. On one hand, he seeks for good – to advance and improve. On the other hand, man follows a natural tendency toward disbelief, disobedience and degenerate behavior. Generally man has shown a greater inclination for degeneracy and evil than for enlightenment and good. The reality of the Great Flood in Noah’s time, followed by the Tower of Babel confusion of languages, are just two of the many historic testimonies of man’s propensity to degenerate from high standards and truth.

That’s how the natural man is, until he becomes converted and committed to the Savior’s standards – “born again” in the Holy Spirit – and puts off the old natural man and becomes a new, spiritually reborn man in Christ (Mosiah 3:19). Until that happens, man not only pulls away from the truth, but seems determined to attack the truth, and to persecute those who have learned to love and follow truth. All of this arises from the CONFLICT diagramed earlier.

Again, TRUTH IS TRUTH, and whether revealed from God or discovered by scientific search, it is TRUTH. Whereas religion deals with WHAT happens and WHY, science attempts to discover the HOW of truth.

True science follows the scientific method of discovery of empirical evidence; it tests all possibilities and accepts all relevant evidences. The inevitable result is, True Science discovers truth. This discovered truth will harmonize perfectly with the revealed truth received by True Religion. We must remember, however, that so far, both sources of truth are dealing with incomplete information. Not all truth has been revealed by God yet, and many secrets of the earth, like missing pieces of a puzzle, are not yet discovered by science. Some truths are not available to be discovered by the traditional scientific method.

In addition, the water is muddied further by False Religion and False Science. False Religion not only denies the power and true nature of God, but it even denies much of His revealed truth. It prefers “the philosophies of men, mingled with a little scripture.” In similar fashion, False Science prefers to believe the theories of vain and deceiving men, ignoring the discipline and honesty of the scientific method of discovery. False Science even ignores or discards many obvious evidences from many sources which may conflict embarrassingly with its preconceived theories.

Science looks for tangible proof, not faith. Yet both the Creationist and the Evolutionist begin upon a similar premise, which requires faith. The Creationist believes (faith) there is a God/Creator. The Evolutionist believes (faith) that his theory can account for all things, which eliminates the need for a God.

The major difference is that the Creationist begins with a God/Creator who has actually revealed Himself and His works to man. In contrast, the Evolutionist begins with his own self-conceived theory, and then attempts to force all evidences to support that theory, even when the realities of true science do not and cannot verify or support it.

The Apostle Paul soundly rebuked the worldly beliefs of both False Religion and False Science on several occasions:

I Cor. 1:25-27 “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise
2:14 … the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

II Tim. 3:7-8 “… ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
4:3-3 “… they will not endure sound doctrine … and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned into fables.”

I Tim 6:20-21 “Timothy, keep … avoiding profane and vain babblings, and operations of science, falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

Col. 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
(Also I Cor 3:19-20)

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi spoke similarly when he said:

II Ne. 9:19-20 “… O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of man! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they harken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they harken unto the counsels of God.”

In other words, a learned scientist who is also a man of God will find and accept the truth from all evidences and all sources, and he will recognize them as harmonious, as they must be and are. But an investigator who rejects or ignores evidences because they may not fit his pet preconceived theory, distinguishes himself as a False Scientist, unworthy of trust before men or God (II Pet. 2:1-2; 3:3-9).

With truth defined in the brief introduction to this point, let’s examine the truth of Creation. It all began out there in space. The mistake many people make here is they want to jump right into the heat of the argument over the “age of the earth,” without first settling the question of truth, as just discussed. It is nearly impossible to discuss the matter with any hope of agreement, unless some basic truths are first agreed upon:

1. There is a God/Creator, He is all knowing and all powerful.

2. God created this earth, and He created it for man, who is God’s literal offspring.

3. Earth and man are programmed to pass through a pre-planned series of develop- mental stages. Those who are obedient will become perfected, as God is.

4. Man is born free to act and choose for himself which course he will follow. His own conscious decisions will influence and determine his eternal destiny.

If we can agree that there is a God/Creator who exists with a purpose for man and earth, then we are in a better position to examine and appreciate the truth of CREATION, which is presented in Chapter Two.

Chapter Two will be posted in one week.

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

Posted in Bob Webster, Family Matters, Guest Posts | 5 Comments »

Bob Webster: Creation vs. Evolution – the Introduction

February 7th, 2011 by Halli

Bob is the author of an amazing manuscript entitled “Creation vs. Evolution” in which he explains why he, as a scientist, believes in Creation by a Divine Being. This post includes the introduction, and the first chapter will be posted immediately. Thereafter, one chapter will be posted each week. If you would like to have the manuscript in its entirety emailed to you, please use the contact form.

One of the problems in communications is that different people have different mental definitions of the same words, and consequently misunderstand and misinterpret one another. For the purpose of this book, the following words are used with the definitions provided here:

CREATION – means a planned, purposeful and deliberate act or series of actions by an intelligent Creator – GOD – resulting in the formation and organization of this earth and all of its contents, living and non-living. Each individual form of life was made complete, and each form was made genetically separate from all others.
The Biblical/scriptural time frame of 1000 years on earth for each God-day of creation is understood to be literally true, even though the counting of time was as yet irrelevant during the Creation period. This Creation implies not only a pre-planned, definite and sudden origin for all life, but that the earth and all associated with it have a pre-planned sequence of events to complete during a set time of duration, to be followed by a specific conclusion and a permanent reorganization of the earth and all its contents preparatory to its ultimate destiny.

All of this is for the benefit of man, who is the literal offspring of the Creator/Father God, and the entire process conforms to universal laws which govern endless space. Space is governed by Gods, of whom our Father is one. Man, likewise is capable of becoming a God, with the overall objective of continuing the Creation process for his own progeny.

RELIGION – in this book is considered to be the belief in a Creator/God, and includes the history of man’s origin and his subsequent relationship with his Creator. Religion also includes man’s practices of living, and his rituals of worship which are associated with his relationship with his Creator.

SCIENCE – is the systematic method of acquiring information and testing a theory against all available evidences, to determine if the theory is true or false. If not true, the theory is either discarded, or revised to conform to current evidence and retested. To be considered scientifically accurate, the procedure must be replicable by at least two independent parties, yielding the same result. A true scientist rigorously follows strict procedures, honestly recording all observations, and accepting all pertinent evidences, regardless of whether or not these evidences support the initial theory being tested. Science involves the use and development of equipment, procedures and materials for experimentation.

EVOLUTION – is a theory which presupposes the theories of uniformity and survival-of-the-fittest. With that foundation it proposes that the universe, the earth and all life forms on earth are the result of accumulative chance over enormous periods of time. The development of new life forms by mutation, or by cross-breeding of different forms would be considered “evolution.”

However, in this book, minor variations (e.g. varied colorings and sizes of flowers, animals or man, etc) within a species would not be considered as evolution, but mere adaptations.

UNIFORMITY – is a theory that the natural ongoing, physical, chemical and life processes evident today have always been this way, and are the key to interpreting events in the past or future. Changes in these processes are assumed to be slow and gradual, requiring millions of years for even minor changes to appear, survive and become dominant in their environment,

SURVIVAL-OF-THE-FITTEST – is a theory that living organisms survive by adapting to their environment as it changes. Those forms most able to adapt to changes are those which survive and predominate. Those least able to adapt become subordinate or disappear as extinct forms.
This theory presupposes that mutation is the primary way in which living things change and adapt to their changing environment, enabling them to survive.

MUTATION – is a theory which presupposes that the genetic code inherent within a living organism can be altered, by either energy rays (X-rays, gamma rays, etc.) or, by repeated exposures to other physical influences of the environment (temperature, moisture, rough, smooth, light, dark, stress, etc.). These alterations/adaptations in response to the environment can then be inherited by its offspring, according to this theory.

Mutation presupposes that all life forms on earth (living or dead) originated from one common ancestor in the ocean, which in turn originated from chance association and combination of non-living chemicals, which subsequently came to function as the original, primitive life form ancestor.

The chapters of this book attempt to follow a logical sequence. For example, before you can really dig in to get a satisfying answer to the question, “How old is the earth?” it is first necessary to define truth. This is done in Chapter 1, followed by the true account of the origin of earth, in Chapter 2.

Such a deliberately-planned creation by an intelligent human Creator naturally raises the question, Why? In response, Chapter 3 opens our view to “The Big Picture,” explaining the reasons behind all creations. It’s a view from God’s paradigm. Finally, Chapter 4 jumps into the heart and heat of the age-old science-vs-religion controversy, the age of the earth.

After that, Chapter 5 will compare the key principles upon which both Creation and evolution are founded. Chapter 6 then provides answers to some of the questions most commonly asked. Before you are tempted to turn directly to Chapter 6, remember that without the understanding gained in the first five chapters, the answers in Chapter 6 might not be clearly understood.

Chapters 7 through 10 are four chapters of references to statements and evidences by modern scientists and Christian leaders. The entire Chapter 7 consists of excerpts from LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith’s writings, and from statements by other LDS Church leaders.

Chapter 8 comes from two valuable books, filled with known scientific evidences which are being ignored by the scientific and educational communities. These two books are Worlds In Collision and Earth In Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky. Although Velikovsky’s viewpoint is agnostic, his dedication to revealing true evidences is fearlessly scientific. His non-religious bias enhances the validity of his material.

Chapter 9 is derived from a priceless book by two scientists who are also Christians. In their scholarly work, The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb Jr. and Henry M. Morris expose the heart of some amazingly unscientific procedures and conclusions which are currently accepted worldwide as true. Other Creation books by Christian authors are listed in the Appendix of this book as valuable references. You may be surprised to see what a wealth of information is available, considering the void of it in our system of education and common social belief.

Chapter 10 is drawn from three books: The Creation, by LDS scientist and teacher Frank B. Salisbury; Science And Mormonism, by Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, who quote famous LDS scholars and church leaders on both sides of the issue; and Earth In The Beginning, by Eric N. Skousen, who proposes interesting answers to the ages and variety of fossils.

Armed with the outstanding TOPICAL GUIDE (TG) found in the back of the LDS King James Bible, an exciting study awaits the truth seeker. You will want to thoroughly study all of the cross-references in the TG under such headings as: CREATION; EARTH; JESUS CHRIST – CREATOR; MAN; TIME; and THOUSAND.
In addition to the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine And Covenants you’ll find exciting material in other books and tapes by LDS authors, some of which are listed below:

Book or Tape Author

Man, His Origin And Destiny – Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation – Joseph Fielding Smith
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith – Joseph Fielding Smith
Mormon Doctrine – Bruce R. McConkie
Discourses of Brigham Young – John A. Widtsoe
The First Two Thousand Years – W. Cleon Skousen
Introduction To The Dead Sea Scrolls (tapes) – Inar Erickson

As part of your preparation to receive these treasures of truth, please take the time to read each scripture reference. Don’t skip past it, simply because it isn’t printed here for your convenience. As you study, pray sincerely to receive understanding of the true meaning as intended by the Lord. God bless you in your search for truth.

Robert L. Webster

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

Posted in Bob Webster, Family Matters, Guest Posts | No Comments »

David Ripley: Conscience Rights Under Attack

February 7th, 2011 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

LifeNews.Com is reporting that the Obama Administration’s attack on conscience rights for health care professionals continues apace.
Congress has, on several occasions, passed legislation to protect conscience rights. However, rule changes pushed by Obama may mean that those rights will be largely unenforced by the federal government. They are continuing to press for repeal of Bush Administration rules allowing for agency enforcement in any institution receiving federal funds.

Without an enforcement mechanism, how will nurses like Cathy DeCarlo deal with demands by hospital administrators that she assist with performing a late-term abortion? Ms. DeCarlo has already been told by a federal court that she cannot bring a lawsuit – but the Department of Health & Human Services could on her behalf. (Zero chance of that happening, given Secretary Sebelius’ rabid support of abortion-on-demand).

This horrific abuse of the Constitution by the national government demonstrates why Idaho’s Conscience Law is so important to retaining high-quality health care professionals in our state.

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

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

David Ripley: Honoring Reagan

February 7th, 2011 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Today is Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday. Overshadowing this historical moment is today’s Super Bowl festivities. No doubt the Gipper would understand, as he was in all things, proudly American.

But Reagan was more than a patriot. He was America’s first pro-Life president. He was the first to take office in the wake of Roe v. Wade with a heartfelt commitment to protecting innocent life in the womb.

It was not always so. Reagan went through a period, while governor of California, in which he proved vulnerable to the propaganda and charms of the Abortion Lobby. But as Reagan matured, so did his fear of legalized abortion.

By 1984, Reagan actually authored a powerful little book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.

Here’s a prime quote:

“Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution….As an act of ‘raw judicial power’ … the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life – the unborn – without diminishing the value of all human life.”

Happy Birthday, Mr. President.

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

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

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood’s Contempt for Women Revealed

February 6th, 2011 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Undercover videos collected by an intrepid pro-Lifer, Lila Rose, demonstrate beyond dispute that Planned Parenthood is in active collusion with prostitutes and pimps to exploit women and girls.
There is the New Jersey video, which has stimulated that state’s Attorney General to announce that she will investigate the practices of Planned Parenthood.

A second video from Virginia has Planned Parenthood employees colluding with a purported pimp to take care of “his girls” – foreign teenagers described to be prostitutes working for him. He needed to know where he could send girls for abortions, STD testing and free birth control. No problem, he is told. They deal with various sex businesses all the time, and are quite skilled in getting around the law when an underage girl needs an abortion.

Much of this activity is paid for by the American taxpayer through the Title X program. But that outrage is secondary to the glimpse we gain into how Planned Parenthood treats women and girls.

It is impossible to conjure up any reasonable definition of “feminism” which protects the sexual and physical exploitation of girls.

Rather than waste energy defending itself, Planned Parenthood has appealed for “public relations” help from its allies across the Left spectrum. No doubt this strategy will create enough fog to help many find distraction from the terrible picture we’ve been given by Lila Rose.

It is well past time for Congress to end our partnership with this nefarious organization.

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 State of the Union Address that Wasn’t

February 5th, 2011 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

For those of us who were hoping for an actual analysis of the condition of our country from the perfunctory State of the Union address Tuesday night came away sorely disappointed. Rather than a factual accounting of where we are as a nation, we were treated to the opening salvo of the 2012 presidential race: we got a campaign speech.
There were some references to some of the problems facing the nation but, as has been his wont, Obama’s answer was for more “investment,” to be understood as “more spending.” Government spending is not the panacea for all that ails the country, as we’ve seen firsthand over the past few years as government spending, to be read as “robbing from Peter to pay Paul,” in reality exacerbates our problems, rather than providing solutions for them. And as George Bernard Shaw once said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.” This past couple of years with the emergence of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party types, the “Peters” are making their voices heard. Perhaps it’s time the “Pauls” start speaking up as well.

For example, our national debt has now exceeded $14 trillion while our national economy is just over $15 trillion. When congress changed leadership in 2006 the national debt was just over $8 trillion. And the budget deficit went from $247 billion to over $1.5 trillion just this week.

A temporary freeze in discretionary spending is not going to solve the spending problem as that only accounts for about 40% of federal spending. The majority of federal spending goes toward entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal pensions. And every year that percentage of the federal budget dedicated to non-discretionary or entitlement programs increases. This is unsustainable as it is impossible to perpetuate programs that take in $1 of revenue, and pay out $1.20 in benefits. This is a critical issue that must be addressed by someone in Washington. Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later.

The “Pauls” in this equation are the recipients, the payees of government largesse. While it’s politically unpalatable to talk about reducing benefits from the entitlement programs, the necessity of doing so is obvious. One of the president’s themes the other night was sacrifice, and a little is going to be required of all of us to prevent the utter financial collapse of the country.

It would’ve been good to hear the president say, “The stimulus hasn’t worked. I promised unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% if we passed it, and here we are at 9.6% and the job situation still isn’t improving. Counting those who have given up on finding a job, we have real unemployment over 17%, nearly as high as it was during the Great Depression. And all those ‘shovel-ready’ jobs that were promised to be completed with the Stimulus, well, not only weren’t there very many of those, but we still have our highways and infrastructure crumbling. So I’m authorizing that the last $100 billion from the stimulus that hasn’t been spent be returned to the Treasury and am requiring that ACORN, the states, and all the specious research funds dispensed with the Stimulus be returned to pay off some of the debt I’ve racked up these first two years of my term. And we’re going to repeal much of the regulation passed these past two years that have shackled the private sector and prevented the job growth that should be occurring with record corporate profits.”

Instead, what we got was a proposed spending freeze of $400 billion, which is little more than a cork to plug the “gusher” that he and his compliant congress drilled for us.

As long as we’re fantasizing over what he might have said, I would have loved hearing him quote from Bill Clinton, and echo his phrase, “The era of big government is over.” That would be a significant admission that as Ronald Reagan explained, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

It would’ve been great to hear him admit that the health-care reform never was about reducing the cost of health care, but was about the government taking it over. And that since the Congressional Budget Office cooked the books on the proposal to have it appear deficit-neutral, he was going to sign the House bill that repealed Obamacare to avoid adding trillions of dollars more to the federal debt and deficit.

The State of the Union should be just that: a realistic recapitulation of the condition of the country, and specific recommendations to address each of those issues. And rather than moving to the center, as some have observed, he simply moderated his tone while still professing that every prescription to the country’s ailments is still government based.

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

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

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

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