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: Global Warming Models Prove Fallacy of AGW

July 31st, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

It’s always fascinating to see the public responses to columns challenging the notion that man is “causing” the earth to warm.

Predictable are the personal attacks against such purveyors of contrarian dogma, as well as references to the favorite buzzwords and invalidated theses. It’s difficult to understand such fierce loyalty and fealty to a theory invalidated by their own models. Whether they’re looking for meaning in life by “saving the world” by diminishing their CO2 footprint, or they’re susceptible to the mainstream media propagandistic endorsement, it’s hard to say.

Let’s start with the obvious, which for some is not obvious, nor easily accepted. According to NASA, global temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Here is the chart for actual temperatures as published by NASA clearly illustrating the cessation of warming in 1998.

The plot appears dramatic, but notice the scale on the left axis. From 1880 to 2013 the range is .8 of one degree Celsius.
We can then look at the chart developed by former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy which plots 73 global warming models. The models’ projections are based on climate sensitivity to manmade carbon dioxide. In other words, the models reflect the premise that man is causing, or at least contributing significantly to, warming of the planet. Yet not one of the models even comes close to reality based on NASA’s empirical data. The mean average for those models is nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than what has been observed for the past 15 years.

Why is this significant? Because it shows that, based on their own theories, and their own calculations of climate sensitivity to manmade CO2, that they’re all wrong. If their theories about the greenhouse potency and feedback of carbon dioxide emissions were correct, their model projections would match reality. And it’s not the earth that’s at fault; it’s the models and their underlying theory!

When they’re so wrong for so long, how can anyone with a semblance of cognitive functionality even possibly consider taking them seriously!

I can’t help but conclude what a phenomenal job it is to be an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scientist. Come up with these alarmist theories to provide global governments the premise to regulate and tax what we exhale as a pollutant; rake in hundreds of millions from government grants to do so; generate sophisticated models to ring the warning bells of catastrophic manmade global warming; be proven totally wrong empirically, and yet still be heralded by media, academia, environmentalist activists, and low-information citizens, as ultimate authorities on the issue, and claim to be right!

With such an abysmal record of projecting reality, now 15 years and running, it would be like a stock analyst in my industry forecasting a decade-and-a-half of bull markets, and be proclaimed a market guru even if all 15 years were bear markets! It’s logically impossible to be right, as claimed by media, academicians, and AGW sycophants, when the alarmist’s calculations, as evidenced by their projections, are completely wrong!

Last month the German news publican Der Spiegel interviewed Hans von Storch, renowned German Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Storch said “scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be fundamentally wrong.” Could be? Do you think? After fifteen years of being wrong, it seems rather obvious that the underlying premises have already been empirically invalidated. He continued, “We are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added. Now that’s an astute statement of the obvious. And notice how he was more concerned that they were all wrong, rather than that the earth was facing cataclysmic warming.

And just a quick note on the “97% of scientists” buy into the AGW hypothesis statement so often repeated by the alarmists. This figure of “consensus” originated from the “Doran Survey.” This was a nonscientific survey of 77 climate scientists polled for a master’s thesis. And it’s been debunked as a flawed and statistically invalid “survey.”

So how do most scientists really feel about AGW? According to Forbes, citing peer-reviewed surveys in February, only 36% of geoscientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, and a solid majority believe what warming is occurring is from natural sources.

If the AGW argument was correct, their models would be accurate. Since they are not, their basic premises are obviously flawed. And to say there’s a consensus is equally fallacious.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Dismantling the Dollar’s Reserve Status

July 31st, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The U.S. dollar has enjoyed an enviable position for years as the reserve currency of the world. This has allowed the Treasury Department presses to run around the clock printing new dollars that will be used to facilitate global trade, finance the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing, and fund our deficit spending. But the dollar’s status as the reserve global reserve currency is slowly unraveling. The consequences of losing that most favored currency status could be devastatingly inflationary.

In 1944, an international conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire that included a gathering of over 700 delegates from all 44 Allied nations of the 2nd World War. The purpose was to design a global currency system that would facilitate trade and render financial order to the post-war world. Several significant developments resulted from this summit, formally called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was established, as well as the establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Resolutions accepted at the conference led to the transition of world reserve currency status from the war-ravaged British sterling, to the U.S. Dollar.

The function of the reserve currency is to serve as a standard of value by which all global financial transactions are measured and facilitated. And after Bretton Woods, the dollar was it. All other currencies were fiat currencies that had no intrinsic value, but rather derived their value compared to, and relative to, the dollar, which in turn was tied to the value of gold at $35 per ounce.

This meant that all global transactions were consummated by exchanging national currencies to dollars for uniformity and accuracy. The dollar has continued in this role, even after the dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971.

What led to the demise of the gold standard has relevance to today’s challenge to the dollar. During the late sixties, government spending grew significantly with the costs of the escalation of the Vietnam conflict and funding of LBJ’s Great Society programs. These were funded mostly by deficit spending, essentially charging the costs with a promise to pay for them in the future. This was extremely risky while the dollar was tied to the value of gold, for overspending and printing of dollars meant an excess of dollars in global circulation which could then be exchanged back to gold, depleting U.S. gold reserves.

This limited the extent to which Washington could deficit-spend, and caused inflationary pressures on the economy. With Washington lacking the fiscal policy discipline to control the spending, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, which “closed the gold window,” making the dollar just another fiat currency with a free-floating value for global exchange.

In many ways, we’re facing a similar situation now. The United States has had five consecutive years of more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The first two of those years we were within a few hundred billion of spending twice what we were collecting in treasury receipts. The lack of discipline and fiscal responsibility in Washington led to a downgrade of the nation’s sea of debt two years ago by Standard & Poor’s. The ratings organization stated at the time, “Elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating.”

S&P added that the nation’s credit rating could be lowered even further if serious attempts to reduce the debt and deficit were not successful. They further asserted that $4 trillion in spending reduction would be a “good start” towards rebuilding our credit rating.

Global confidence in the dollar is weakening. The massive spending which led to the downgrade of our debt has only been exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy of low interest rates and Quantitative Easing, funded by free-running printing presses and newly minted dollars. As a result, the dollar’s standing as the global reserve currency is steadily eroding.

China has been aggressively touting their yuan, or renminbi, as a replacement to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Many nations have already agreed to bilateral trade with China, bypassing conversion to dollars. Just in the past two years, China has inked deals with Germany, Russia, Brazil, Australia, Japan, France, Chile, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, India, and South Africa.

“Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown,” Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, said recently. “But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to 10 years… If the dollar loses status as the world’s most reliable currency, the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt. The ratings agencies are already arguing that the government’s debt may be too highly rated. The United States Congress, in both its houses, as well as the president, are demonstrating a total lack of fiscal credibility.”

Money News reported in February, “The greenback is declining as a percentage of the world’s currency supply. Compared with its peers, it has dropped to a 15-year low, as nations show a willingness to use other currencies to conduct business, according to the International Monetary Fund.”

In March, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece titled, “Why The Dollar’s Reign Is Near an End.” They pointed to some of the obvious implications of the dollar’s demise as the reserve currency. “In this new monetary world, the U.S. government will not be able to finance its budget deficits so cheaply, since there will no longer be as big an appetite for U.S. Treasury securities on the part of foreign central banks. Nor will the U.S. be able to run such large trade and current-account deficits, since financing them will become more expensive.” In fact, the March Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that we will be paying over $5 trillion for the next ten years just to pay the interest on the national debt. This figure will be adjusted much higher as the dollar declines in use as the reserve currency, leading to an erosion of its purchasing power.

Sam Zell, chairman of Equity Group Investments, said in an interview with CNBC: “My single biggest financial concern is the loss of the dollar as the reserve currency. I can’t imagine anything more disastrous to our country. I’m hoping against hope that isn’t going happen, but you’re already seeing things in the markets that are suggesting that confidence in the dollar is waning. I think you could see a 25% reduction in the standard of living in this country if the U.S. dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. That’s how valuable it is.”

The managing director of Pimco, Bill Gross, who manages more bond assets than anyone else in the world, wrote recently, “The future price tag of printing six trillion dollars worth of checks comes in the form of inflation and devaluation of currencies.”

The Wall Street Journal’s George Melloan concurred, “Indeed, it is unlikely that Americans themselves will escape the inflationary consequences of current Fed policy. The Fed is financing a vast and rising federal deficit, following a practice that has been a surefire prescription for domestic inflation from time immemorial.”

Investor Jim Rogers recently advised, “The dollar is not just in decline; it’s a mess. If something isn’t done soon, I believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange, something that would lead to a huge decline in the standard of living for U.S. citizens like nothing we’ve seen in nearly a century.”

Dollar weakness has accelerated since the downgrade of U.S. debt. To prevent this continued decline Washington must get a handle on spending, and make serious cuts, not just cuts in the rate of growth as the recent sequester was. The Federal Reserve must discontinue the Quantitative Easing that has buoyed domestic equity markets, but has infused too many dollars into global markets, and created a fiscally incestuous relationship with the Fed buying our own debt. If these actions are not taken soon, all Americans can expect to see double-digit hyperinflation comparable to the 1980s. The continued erosion of the dollar as the reserve currency will affect all of us.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Logical Fallacies and AGW Alarmism

July 31st, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Columns from a conservative, or classical-liberal perspective are veritable magnets to the ill informed, the uninformed, and often to the well informed, who just happen to be either wrong or illogical in their arguments. And sometimes, they are both wrong and illogical.

Such was the case with a letter to the editor this past week that took issue with my latest column on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or climate change as it is now called, since the globe hasn’t warmed at all since 1998, contrary to all of the AGW alarmist’s computer models. Usually with such detractors, I simply pen a response to their missives clarifying issues and addressing the areas where they felt I had erred.

This particular letter, however, provided a superb teachable moment, and as such, warranted a more formal and analytical response that all can learn from; conservatives and liberals alike. For that is how I perceive my role, to stimulate thought, reflection, and to provide factual information oftentimes beyond the purview of the mainstream media, from whence most in our society glean their “knowledge.”

A retired chemistry professor, who is undoubtedly superbly competent in his discipline, authored the letter which didn’t even address the points made in my column. Due to the logical fallacies employed, three of which I will focus on, his argument was null and void, constituting little more than wasted column inches, except for the didactic value.

Remember, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Logicians have identified nearly eighty such fallacies, many of which are employed on a daily basis by those who seek to influence us. But the logical fallacies employed in the professor’s letter represent some of the most widely used inanities.

The most commonly used logical fallacy is the ad hominem, which is literally a verbal attack on the purveyor, or the messenger. It evades addressing the substance of the original argument, and goes after the one making the argument. This was employed superbly by the professor, as he not only assailed me personally, but he did the same against a source I cited, who authored a peer-reviewed piece referenced in the column, rather than addressing the substance of our combined arguments.

He also used a variant of the ad hominem, the poisoning the well fallacy, where adverse information about someone is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the targeted person says, whether relevant to the current issue or not. He used this in reference to Dr. Roy Spencer, a source I cited, when he cavalierly dismissed his perspective by calling Spencer, “an avowed creationist,” and exclaiming, “Aha, now I understand!” In other words, all of Spencer’s credentials and expertise as the lead research climatologist at the University of Alabama, and his background as a NASA scientist, and the senior scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, were dismissed because he’s a creationist. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the invalidity of such a specious position.

And finally, the writer used the appeal to authority fallacy by including PhD after his name. This is done to assert a self-perceived superiority as an authority, regardless of discipline or expertise, in order to persuade.

Actually much of the AGW alarmists argument is based on logical fallacies, which invalidate and vitiate their spurious claims. For example, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.” This fallacy confuses correlation with causation. Because the earth warmed 1 degree Celsius during the past century, which also happened to coincide with increased manmade CO2 emissions, it must be causal, is the erroneous premise. The empirical data show that it was correlation, rather than causation, since warming has not continued over the past 15 years while emissions have increased dramatically.

Closely related is the regression fallacy which ascribes cause where none exists. This fallacy is created by failing to account for natural fluctuations in global temperatures or other factors, such as solar activity, which empirically tracks varying global temperatures with great precision, as opposed to manmade CO2 emissions.

They also employ the faulty generalization fallacy, where a broad generalization (AGW) is concluded from weak premises (negligible correlation with actual CO2 emissions).

AGW alarmists also rely heavily on the Argumentum ad populum, also known as the bandwagon argument, where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many believe it to be so. They must totally ignore the over 1100 peer-reviewed research pieces challenging the AGW “consensus” in the process.

Perhaps most egregious, however, is their appeal to emotion. Relying on the false premises of their arguments, AGW alarmists attempt to compel us to be “green” lest we destroy the earth with our collective .0083% contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is little more than fear-mongering for the express purpose of controlling, regulating, and taxing human activity.

Most distressing about the detractor’s letter is the evidence provided that, even in academia, the dominant teaching approach is to tell students what to think, rather than teaching them how to think. Even if we don’t remember all of the varied logical fallacies employed to persuade us on a daily basis, just a critical thought process can reveal the errors in logic employed to make us a submissive and obedient mass to be controlled and told what to think by the mainstream media, and ideologically motivated academicians and politicians.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

This is the letter to the editor referenced in the column.
Letter to the Editor 07/09/13
Idaho State Journal
Once again Journal columnist Richard Larsen indulges his personal belief that he is a scientist by writing an article (June 23) on “his” perception of global warming.
I can tolerate this based on our freedom of speech, although I must say that his idea of science leaves much to be desired.
What I cannot tolerate is his obvious misinformation by omission. I took the time to read his comments and noted that he bases these on the work of a Dr. Roy Spencer. I am a practicing scientist, but had never heard of him. So I did a literature search for Dr. Spencer’s works.
His vita from the University of Alabama is less than impressive, listing six publications of which only four are scientific papers, and I cannot attest to the quality of the journals in which he has published.
Upon further searching for Spencer’s credentials, I found that he is an avowed creationist. Aha, now I understand! As one of my creationist students once said to me, “We don’t have to worry about overpopulation of the earth, if there are too many people, God will send us a war.”
It all becomes so simple, doesn’t it?
Returning to Mr. Larsen, he never once mentioned that Spencer was a creationist. He never once mentioned that Spencer’s vita is stunningly sparse (for comparison, in my field, it is usual for an average researcher to have 50 to 100 publications). Nor did he mention that Spencer’s recent interview on the website Catholic Online was thoroughly panned.
Dennis P. Strommen, Ph.D., Inkom

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

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

Andi Elliott: Baloney

July 21st, 2013 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

Like many of you, I consider the George Zimmerman trial a witch hunt and an absolute sham…a judicial and political travesty of justice. The failure of the prosecutor to look at the evidence objectively is unconscionable. It is their duty to see that justice is done. Period. Not to manipulate, distort, promulgate lies, withhold evidence, and twist the case into something it never was. Their sworn duty is to see that justice is carried out…not to prove only guilt but also to prove innocence.

And these are the very reasons that I can identify with Zimmerman having just experienced many of the same tactics at the hands of the Jefferson County Sheriff and the Prosecutor albeit on a much less serious level. And five days after having been notified of my acquittal, the prosecutor tells me that this is the way the justice system is suppose to work.

Hogwash! How disingenuous after two years of repeated lies, waiting months for Discovery that proved they had the wrong person, unethical behavior by the Sheriff’s department, obfuscation, objections, and deliberately drawing out the process as long as possible. However, the delay proved to be very useful for my defense as it became difficult to remember lies told so long ago.

Jefferson County taxpayers…you have just spent two years of taxpayer money on a misdemeanor trespassing case that was nothing short of a trumped up vendetta. The files are available for your inspection should you have doubts about my complaints. Five full days of trial strung out over 17 months. Murder cases are tried in less time than that.

And is it too much to ask that the evidence be examined BEFORE charges are filed so a whole court day is not wasted covering up your malfeasance? I’m guessing that the plan was for me to cry “uncle” but instead I say “baloney”…unadulterated “baloney”. This was a textbook case of abuse of power if there ever was one and follows in the same vein as the “Barbie” fiasco. Do we really not have serious crimes here in Jefferson County to attend to?

But in retrospect, I should thank you for proving my innocence. The state’s witnesses were some of my best “defense”…as they were in the Zimmerman case.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Property Rights, Taxes | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Legal Fabric Unraveling

July 16th, 2013 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

Every so often serendipity happens. For me it was in June when my husband was on the witness stand testifying in my third trespassing case. The prosecutor asked my husband why he felt the need to accompany me on my animal cruelty investigations. He sat there silently, a very long pause. I could see those wheels turning. Engineer’s brains work differently from the rest of us I’ve found. Then John said…Because I’ve learned that you are not seeking the truth. I’ve been with Andi the last two times you have charged her with trespass, yet I haven’t been charged. Needless to say, I was very proud of him for having the courage to say what needed to be said at that appropriate moment.

And so the acquittal was entered into court records which ended a 6 year long ordeal with the Sheriff and the Prosecutor. But justice has yet to be served. You see, there is the deputy that admitted under oath about creating documentation AFTER he charged me. And there are those who filed false complaints against me in violation of Idaho law. And as you would suspect other unethical behavior occurred during the course of my trial.

For six years I have witnessed a travesty of justice taking place in Jefferson County. I’ve written before about the “rule of law” and how it has been circumvented by a small group of county officials. We have become complacent with the “rule by men” and we have failed to stand up to them and have emboldened them. Our failure to stand up to them has made them reckless. When our Prosecutor can undertake the “quiet title” process without lawful authorization and when our Sheriff can pressure a citizen into signing a false citation, then we have allowed tyranny to insidiously infect our county’s legal fabric.

So, I have filed a complaint against the deputy. And I am asking the Sheriff and Prosecutor to file charges against those who have falsely accused me. By the way, when I asked them to do so in the “mother dog with broken legs” case I was totally ignored. And then there is a slander suit to initiate followed by civil suits. As John Paul Jones is noted for saying, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

Remember, every time you witness or experience injustice and remain silent, you allow officials to usurp power. It’s time that We The People of Jefferson County Idaho step up and reclaim our rightful place and reaffirm to county officials and employees that WE are their bosses and they are to abide by the law.

This could have been you in my place. Think about that.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Our Culture of Deranged Values

July 5th, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

A friend shared a message with me recently that illustrated some of the absurdities we find in American society today. The caption was, “You know you live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots,” and then lists several provocative issues that illustrate how far we’ve departed from the principles of freedom and common sense which were dominant at our founding. Taking some liberties with the original phraseology, and adding some other examples, we clearly have become a warped and twisted culture with few core values, and a perverted sense of propriety.

For example, you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally.
School children have to get parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion or take a morning after pill.

We have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, or check out a library book but not to vote, in many states.
We have politicians that want to ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns but give fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and want to give weapons to the resistance in Syria that beheads opponents and eats their hearts.

You can buy two 16-ounce sodas but not a 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might contribute to obesity.
An 80-year-old woman can be strip-searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

A seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

Children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes.

Hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize not working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks.
You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself luxuries, while your neighbor buys iPhones, TV’s, and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage.

We have politicians who believe that the best way to make our communities safer is to strip the citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

The government’s idea of making health care more affordable is to dictate the terms of health insurance policies, which makes premiums skyrocket.

Our notion of “fairness” in taxation is to make those who pay the most, pay even more, and let more people pay none.
We have a whole segment of the population who profess tolerance, but show little or none for those who disagree.

Some Christian leaders declare the “end of times,” and are ridiculed by the media and the left, yet the doomsday scenarios of the climate change alarmists are conveniently forgotten when they don’t materialize.

School children are allowed to spew the most vulgar words and expressions, but face suspension if they talk openly about God or Jesus Christ.

School children can be expelled for giving an aspirin to another child, but can share all the prophylactics they want.

Our exhaled breath, carbon dioxide, can now be regulated as a pollutant, but flatulence is not.

Our government classifies pro-lifers and veterans as potential terrorists, but not Islamists who want to destroy America.

Many children have legally-protected open access to the most violent video games, movies, and internet sites yet are suspended from school for holding up a pop tart in the shape of a gun.

A child can be suspended for wearing a T-shirt acknowledging the NRA, which teaches gun safety, but is just fine wearing one with the image of Che Guevara, who was a mass murderer.

A crucifix in a glass of urine passes as art, but don’t even think about doing anything pejorative with a visage of Mohammed, even a cartoon!

Minority youth use a racist term in their speech to one another incessantly, but a “cracker” who used the term 30 years ago, has a $100 million cooking franchise collapse.

Many colleges encourage students to participate in “sex week” activities but one student is suspended for refusing to stomp on a picture of Jesus.

Students can be taught explicitly about homosexuality, but can’t have mentioned to them the possibility of intelligent design of the universe.

Such inanity evidencing the devolution of our culture could go on inexorably. But clearly we are a ludicrous, upside-down society of skewed priorities and values, shaped by convoluted notions of what acceptable or politically correct behavior should be. Common sense, once common, is no more. It truly makes one wonder if there’s any hope for us. The prophet Isaiah said, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” It’s a morally dark day in America, and it’s getting darker.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Second Amendment | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Lions’ Misstep

July 2nd, 2013 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

On June 26 at the regular meeting of the Hamer Lions Club, a member made a request to use the building as a local food bank. I explained that I was not in favor of this request as I know of repeated abuses of the use of food banks. Folks are coming from outside of the community to gather boxes of food and then going on to the next food bank and so forth… It’s becoming quite a racket (kind of like voter fraud)…made all the worse that all restrictions to qualify for a food box have now been dropped. I requested a vote on this issue and after some discussion, was the only dissenting vote.

During the discussion, I pointed out that we have around the corner from our building, a LDS church which cares for our community members in need. And even in our small town of Hamer, the Lions Club helps our neighbors in need of assistance. The Mormons have an exceptionally well coordinated program of helping families while at the same time giving them an opportunity to retain their dignity by completing service work if physically able. I know of no other such organization that accomplishes these efforts so well as the LDS church. They have set an example that should be the standard for all religious organizations.

But now we are going to allow outsiders to step in and intervene in our mission as Christians. We are Biblically admonished to care for our neighbors and to allow outsiders to dictate to us is simply wrong… But hey, it’s a lot easier for us to accede our responsibility than to shoulder the burden ourselves.

And since the vote was one of acquiescence to outside influence and loss of local control, I’m going to be one of their first “first customers” and go get a box of food for my dogs. Hey, there are no restrictions…so why not take advantage of the largess of outsiders? It doesn’t take long to become accustomed to standing in line at the public trough, does it? And after the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision this week, we can now marry our cows so hope the food banks have a good supply of hay and grains…preferably “whole grains”.

Andi Elliott


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

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

David Ripley: Obama Regime Creates New Revenue Stream for Planned Parenthood

July 2nd, 2013 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Just a week after the Idaho Legislature approved a partnership with the Obama Administration to impose ObamaCare upon the people of Idaho, Secretary of HHS Sebelius issued a 58-page order to the states requiring them to certify Planned Parenthood as a legitimate health care provider. This status as an “essential community provider” means that private insurance companies like Blue Cross of Idaho must pay insurance claims to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services if they are to sell “qualified health plans” on the state insurance exchange.

What does this mean for Idaho families and preborn babies at risk in the womb?

It means that the federal regime under Sebelius and Obama has created an entirely new revenue stream for Planned Parenthood operations all across the nation. While these dollars will not go directly to pay for abortions – they greatly subsidize Murder, Inc. by helping to cover operating and staff costs. This indirectly finances Planned Parenthood’s organization and its reach into our communities.

It also means that Planned Parenthood will be treated by the feds as a legitimate “health care provider” on a par with St. Alphonsus or Eastern Idaho’s Regional Medical Center. Semi-private companies like Blue Cross will be forced into a partnership with Planned Parenthood.

The order from Sebelius is dated April 5th, but has only recently come to light through the work of the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins. In a recent email to pro-Life activists across the nation, Perkins wrote,

“Unfortunately for Americans, Sebelius – not Congress – decides what belongs in state insurance exchanges. And if her past relationships are any indication, taxpayers are in for even more surprises when ObamaCare goes into effect January 1.”

And, we must emphasize, the new Board of the Idaho Insurance Exchange is equally powerless in this matter. Yet they are nevertheless morally compromised because they will serve as the intermediaries enforcing Sebelius’ various edicts upon companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield. This is the awful new reality created by the Idaho Legislature and Governor Otter.

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

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

David Ripley: State Exchange Appears to Break State Law

July 2nd, 2013 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Due to some excellent reporting by the Idaho Reporter, we learn that the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare has given $385,000 to the insurance exchange to cover operating expenses and start-up costs. The promise of “free federal money” used by promoters during the legislative session has yet to materialize.

According to the conservative news website, the decision to transfer funds was made unilaterally by the Department’s director, Dick Armstrong. He moved the money earlier this month, in apparent violation of the state law creating the insurance exchange.

The enabling legislation, narrowly approved by the Legislature this last winter, made it clear in two different sections of the law that no state funds would be used in running the ObamaCare Exchange:

IC 41-6105 (2)(a): “The exchange shall be financially self-supporting and shall not request any financial support from the state … or encumber state assets.”

IC 41-6105 (2)(j): “The state of Idaho shall not be liable for any obligations of the exchange ….”

After operating with the money for nearly a month, the Board of the Exchange formally requested an Attorney General’s opinion on the transfer last week, after the Idaho Reporter story went public.

Sen. Dean Cameron, the Legislature’s dominating authority on budgetary matters, seemed relatively unconcerned about the apparent violation of state law – not to mention the appropriation process itself – but did acknowledge to the Idaho Reporter that other legislators had expressed concern.

We encourage you to read the Idaho Reporter story for yourself and talk with your local legislators about the matter.

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

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

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