TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

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

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: The Most Dangerous Man in America

August 28th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

George Soros’ wide and deep role in funding and directing the American Left have come under some media scrutiny in the past couple of weeks, as a treasure trove of email traffic and documents from his “Open Society Foundation” have been made public.

Documents show that he is a primary financier of the Black Lives Matter group fomenting violence as well as lethal attacks on police officers across America. Other documents show his fingerprints on the movements to free violent felons from federal prisons, erase the nation’s border, revolutionize voting procedures and undermine America’s economic strength through a radical environmental agenda.

Despite a criminal record for insider trading, Soros continues to amass greater wealth and controlling influence within the Democratic Party. Reports indicate that he is now worth some $25 billion – the very personification of the “One Percent”. Yet he exercises a magnetic force on the politics of Hillary Clinton and many members of Congress – from both parties.

But among the many revolutionary/anarchist movements that Soros continues to spawn in a mad strategy of destroying western civilization, none is more troubling than his funding of the legalized abortion movement.

A recent report in LifeNews shows that Soros is spending millions of dollars to overturn pro-Life protections for preborn children in a number of nations – including Ireland, Tanzania, Mexico and Nigeria. His strategy in Ireland is to funnel millions into Amnesty International to promote the notion that abortion is a fundamental “human right”.

In America, Soros has donated more than $18 million to Planned Parenthood in the past five years. He then made an emergency allocation to Planned Parenthood in the wake of their baby-body-parts scandal to help them finance a public relations effort aimed at calming the consciences of most Americans. That kind of money and powerful influence is part of the reason that the Congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood’s sordid practices has faded from the media’s attention, despite the panel’s irrefutable evidence of the darkest evil within America’s largest abortion chain.

This is but a brief overview of the dark influence of George Soros on modern American politics. But it is sufficient to confirm the worst fears that Soros is a one-man conspiracy to cripple America. The extent of his influence and effectiveness is truly horrifying.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Capitalism Works, if Government Would Just Get Out of the Way!

August 26th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

A seemingly accelerating trend with many Americans is to look with skepticism and a jaundiced perspective at business, capitalism, and the profit motive. In spite of efforts by some to rewrite history, those of us who are students of history recognize that capitalism made America the economic superpower that it is. And the more we allow government to interfere in our economy, the more we move toward a fascistic system where government controls the means of production.

Business and the profit motive have turned us from an agrarian to a high-tech producing and consuming nation. All of us are dependent upon business and the profit motive for everything we do every day. From the manufacturer of the bed we arise from and the alarm clock we wake up to, to the toothpaste, shampoo, and comb we use in the morning. The beverage we imbibe to give us a kick-start in the morning and the vehicle we drive to work are products of once small businesses that have grown sometimes to global proportions. If any of those products or services we depend on get too expensive, we start shopping for cheaper alternatives. That’s capitalism in a nutshell.

Most of us even work for a small business driven by the profit motive. Those firms, created and managed by entrepreneurs, market and sell products, provide advice and services, and fill the needs of people from all walks of life. They pay us to fill a specific function within the company to help them service their customers more efficiently and cost-effectively. And most of them pay another 30% of our salaries or wages in the form of benefits to help retain quality employees. And according to Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University an amazing 89 percent of us are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our jobs.

As a matter of fact, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, pay 45% of total U.S. private payroll, generate 80% of new jobs annually, create more than 50% of nonfarm private GDP, comprise 97% of all identified exporters, and produce 26% of the known export value to our GDP.

Yet every time new governmental regulation is imposed on businesses, the costs increase. Whenever the government increases taxes on companies, the costs increase again. In order to stay in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers, or find other ways to reduce costs like eliminating jobs. That’s why it makes no sense to tax companies since we all end up individually paying their taxes via increased prices for their products and services.

And it’s not just small business that makes our quality of life what it is, but the brother of small business; BIG business. It’s not an evil concept, to sell things that people want and need at prices that most people can afford, so they can sell as much or as many as possible, applying the economies of scale. And they do so with a profit motive in order to share their success with those who ponied-up the capital, (investors, silent partners, share-holders) facilitating their business ventures. Remember, if they over-price their widgets, they price themselves out of the market. If they underprice their widgets, they’re not going to remain viable, and will have to lay off employees and won’t be able to pay all those taxes the government is requiring of them. Then their employees will have to hope they can find another widget company to replace the job they lost.

The media, Hollywood, and even some of our fellow citizens bash “big pharma,” big oil, or big retailers like Wal-Mart. But in reality what do those “big” evil companies do? They provide needed products and services at reasonable prices, and jobs, enabling our national economic engine, and our quality of life, to keep chugging along. They have limited control over much of their expenses, but to be able to continue doing what they do, they achieve a modest profit to ensure their viability in future years, and allow us to have a job.

When politicians promise “free stuff” at the expense of taxpayers, they’re doing nothing more than attempting bribery – they promise free stuff for our votes. And it’s not their free stuff. It’s stuff they promise to use governmental coercion to forcibly take from others, in order to redistribute to those they’re bribing.

It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders, who nearly captured the Democrat nomination, (and would have if the DNC had not colluded with the Clinton campaign) garnered the support he did as the self-avowed socialist peddled collectivist promises for populist electoral support.

And Hillary Clinton is no less ideologically aligned with socialistic solutions. A disciple of Saul Alinsky, and the first architect of a socialized healthcare system for the U.S., she has made some brash statements over the years that reveal her ideological convictions. Among her many anti-capitalist statements are these nuggets. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” (6/29/04). “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity,” (5/29/07). “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people,” (6/4/07). “I certainly think the free-market has failed,” (6/4/07).

The brilliant economist, Thomas Sowell, has philosophically put the failed socialist ideology into proper perspective. “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” And for academics who are smitten with the failed ideology, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant than only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Too many of us rely on fallacious populist typecasts of what business and the profit motive do, rather than relying on our empirical observations of their contributions to our quality of life and economic viability. We allow the media, Hollywood, or anti-business kvetching to taint our perceptions with a failed, yet idyllically appealing narrative of “equality” or “social justice.”

PragerU has produced an insightful clip that explains this perfectly. It can be seen here.

The profit motive, capitalism, and free enterprise, are the backbone to our economic system, and as such, are the key to future growth and prosperity, individually and collectively. Government encroachment and increased regulation stymie future potential growth, our quality of life, and our job security. It’s time for Americans to quit buying (with their votes), what self-serving politicians promise for them. Less regulation, less taxation, less government spending, and less government control is the solution for future economic growth and security.

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: The Democrat Convention – A Spectacle of Duplicity

August 12th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

Ronald Reagan once memorably stated, “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Seldom do we get such a grand stage to prove the veracity of his statement, as we did at the Democrat Convention last week. Here are just a few of the numerous examples that were liberally uttered during their confab.

Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood said on the first day of the convention, “Planned Parenthood was founded 100 years ago, giving women the care they need to live their lives and chase their dreams — no limits, no ceilings.” Apparently she’s forgotten that PP founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, held the conviction that blacks and minorities should be “weeded out” from the populace. That sounds like a pretty significant “limit” and “ceiling,” to me!

Michelle Obama said, “We explain [to our girls] when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to that level. No. Our motto is: When they go low, we go high.” Apparently the First Lady is unfamiliar with how Barry has bullied his progressive agenda onto the nation, bypassing congress, which has the only authority to create laws. As the president has said, “I have a pen and a phone,” and he presumed that gave him all the authority necessary for him to create new law by simply and dictatorially declaring it. There has never been a bigger bully in the Oval Office.

She also said, “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn’t great — that somehow we need to make it great again. Because this, right now, is the greatest country on earth.” Hmm. I seem to recall her saying in 2008, “For the first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country.” She must not have thought it was too great then. Oh, maybe that’s because her husband hadn’t yet completed his “fundamental transformation” of America. Now that the government has eviscerated so many of our individual rights, and so many socialistic programs imposed on the populace, maybe it’s now great to her.

Senator Elizabeth Warren declared, “Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, health care, child care — costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can’t stretch a Social Security check to cover the basics. And even families who are OK today worry that it could all fall apart tomorrow. This. Is. Not. Right!” Well what do you expect, Senator? Those are the predictable results of seven years of Obama Administration policies. Since Hillary would be the heir apparent to perpetuate those destructive policies, the Senator has unwittingly provided the very evidence why Clinton should not be elected!

Warren also said, “People get it: the system is rigged.” That couldn’t be more true for Bernie Sanders supporters, who saw the DNC rig the system to ensure Hillary’s coronation. And perhaps not coincidentally, the economy is now “rigged” against the middle class, as they shoulder the immense costs associated with the redistributive policies of Obama, and the increased costs of onerous regulations imposed on small business over the past seven years. Yes, it is rigged. And Obama, Clinton, et al did most of the rigging!

Erstwhile presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues.” One can only wonder if he didn’t get Michelle Obama’s memo that America is already great. And if perpetuation of that “revolution” means more of what the past seven years has dumped on the nation, heaven help us if his revolution is not yet over! The middle class can’t take much more of his idea of “transforming America.”

Khizr Khan, a Gold-Star Father and an immigration attorney specializing in Muslim immigrants, said, “Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’” Well, apparently Khizr Khan hasn’t read the Constitution himself. The word liberty only appears in the preface explaining the purpose of the document, and “equal protection of law” is nowhere to be found. Granted, the 14th Amendment assures “equal protection under the law” for citizens, but not for those whom Khan was promoting. Further, when he said Trump’s proposal to limit Islamic immigrants was “unconstitutional,” he obviously didn’t know about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which allows the president to “bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said on day two, “As the brother of a retired police officer, I am profoundly aware that an attack on a police officer anywhere is an attack on our entire society. So it is not enough for us to praise law enforcement after cops are killed. We must protect them, value them…” Holder has arguably been at the helm of the nationwide war on policemen. Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke has said of Holder, that he is “the most race-obsessed attorney general in the history of the United States… Everything he does is put through the racial lens. He’s had Ferguson, Missouri and its police department in his crosshairs ever since he went down there with that tragic situation with Mike Brown.” He and his boss are most culpable for the threats to our law enforcement officers resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement.

Former Senator and presidential candidate Howard Dean declared, “We need a president who will defend our interests around the world — not with ignorant bluster and bombast, but with toughness and resolve.” He’s exactly right! Obama certainly hasn’t done that, even with Clinton at his side. Electing the one most responsible for the chaos in Libya, abandoning Americans there to die, and then lying about it, hardly fits the bill!

And finally, from outgoing President Barack Obama, “While this nation has been tested by war and recession and all manner of challenges — I stand before you again tonight, after almost two terms as your president, to tell you I am even more optimistic about the future of America. How could I not be after all we’ve achieved together?” According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 73% of registered voters say the country is on the wrong track, while just 18% said it is headed in the right direction. I’m not sure he has any ground to brag from. And Hillary represents just more of the same.

And then on the final night it was the candidate herself. In one paragraph in her speech, she lamented the horrible condition of the economy, and yet claimed Obama and Biden didn’t get enough credit for it.

It’s little wonder that a party whose core principles move ever farther from the republic’s foundational values, would display such detachment from reality. These observations should be universally acknowledged, yet inexplicably they get lost in the spin of the media and partisan myopia. If indeed 73% of registered voters believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the last thing we should do is to add another four years to the Obama legacy of economic malaise, regulatory overreach, redistributive policies, and foreign policy ineptitude.

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

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

Richard Larsen: DNC Corruption at the Core – the Latest Evidence

August 11th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

What a revelatory week this has been for the Democrat Party. From media collusion, to the resignation of the head of the Democrat National Committee on the eve of the convention, the curtain has been pulled back on the inner workings and modus operandi of the DNC.

Just a few days before the convention Julian Assange’s Wikileaks released over 20,000 emails hacked from the DNC. From the publically exposed internal emails what many of us have suspected was verified, that the DNC colludes with the mainstream media on their reporting. As one source described the collusion, “The intimate relationship between the Democratic Party and the media isn’t just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by paranoid conservatives. Turns out, there’s more bias in some newsrooms than there is at a Lois Lerner auditing party. From reporters giving party officials a chance to edit or comment on their stories to outright dictating what questions Democratic officials will be asked on air, the collusion uncovered in the pages of messages is astounding — even for the most cynical media critic.”

Another dubious practice with the mainstream media was also revealed. Over 15 specific recent examples were exposed of mainstream media “draft sharing” their stories before publication. Draft sharing is a practice of sharing the drafts of stories with sources before the stories are published.

While not illegal, from a reporting standpoint, the practice is unethical, according to journalism experts. Renita Coleman, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, has said, “It’s been a time-honored code that you don’t show sources stories before they run.” Edward Wasserman, the Knight Chair in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, said that draft sharing is “hard to square with even the most source-friendly reporting practices.” No wonder the mainstream media sounds and acts like they’re simply the propaganda arm of the DNC.

Another media analyst made the observation, “The Left must know that it can’t win the war of ideas on a level playing field, so it resorts to lying, slander, and outright distortion — in many cases, with the liberal media’s help. Of course, the people most hurt by the press’s bias aren’t conservatives — they’re the American people, who never really get to know the truth about their candidates.”

The leaked emails also proved that the DNC purposefully tilted the political playing field in Hillary Clinton’s favor, sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign, much to the chagrin of Sanders’ supporters. The most egregious was denying the Sanders campaign access to the DNC voter database. Most political analysts are now saying had this not been done, Bernie would have won the nomination with the requisite number of delegates from the primaries. The revelations led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as the head of the DNC, on the eve of the convention. An underling gaveled in the first days of the convention.

But true to form for the party of corruption, Shultz was rewarded immediately by the Clinton campaign, by naming her as the honorary chairman of the Clinton campaign. Based on how she was running the DNC, through the lens of the leaked emails, it would appear she had been functioning as a de facto Clinton official all along.

Predictably, Clinton and the DNC blamed the Wikileaks revelations on the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook, claimed on ABC’s “This Week” that they were leaked, “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” Mook offered no evidence, of course, which only further invests the Clinton campaign more in their conspiracy theory of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” If anything, the DNC emails prove there’s a “vast left wing conspiracy” of collusion between the party and the mainstream media.

The DNC emails also prove how they take for granted the Hispanic and the black vote. Multiple emails from DNC staffers referred to the “buckets” of voters, based on race. They further prove how they take those voters for granted by claiming that they are the most “brand-loyal” voters for the party. It should be immensely disturbing to those voters that they’re assumed to be so loyal that they are merely blind puppets of the party that panders to their special interests.

Equally disturbing was the pejorative way they are sometimes referenced by the DNC. One staff member, and Obama campaign veteran, Rebecca Christopher, referred to their courtship of Hispanic voters as “taco bowl outreach.” That kind of “branding” should cause all sentient Hispanic voters to rethink their commitment and fealty to the DNC.

As if to not let Jewish voters feel left out, on the first day of the convention, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA), compared Israeli settlers on the West Bank to “termites.” Rabbi David Wolpe, writing in Time after the Johnson gaffe, was astounded at the “shockingly limited amount of play in the press,” the statement received. Especially, as Wolpe points out, since the “terminology evokes some of the worst expressions of historical anti-Semitism—those moments in time when Jews were characterized as ‘vermin’ and targeted for ‘extermination.’”

As the New York Observer printed earlier this year, in a pieced titled, “Sooner or Later the DNC will Have to Face Its Corruption Issues,” the DNC has “come under scrutiny throughout the Democratic primaries, from rigging the debate schedule, to inciting a lawsuit from the Sanders campaign over access to voter database files, to colluding with the Clinton campaign through a joint fundraising committee—the Hillary Victory Fund—which was recently accused of violating campaign finance laws. The fund has also been linked to buying the support of superdelegates as the Clinton campaign gets to decide where and how much money goes to state Democratic Parties.” The piece linked much of the corruption to “the fear of retribution” from the DNC and party leaders, which “has been silencing Democrats for way too long.”

Neither of the major parties is immune to the foibles, follies, and imperfections of the individuals either leading or working in them. But the Democrat Party, at least at the national level, appears to be corrupt at its very core, as copiously evidenced by the leaked DNC emails. Perhaps it’s time for all cognitively functional Democrats, especially Hispanics, Jews, and blacks, to rethink their blind party loyalty.

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

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

David Ripley: Historic Struggle for Life Continues

July 16th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In the wake of the most recent Supreme Court ruling, some in media have suggested that the political, social and legal fight for preborn is all but over. Of course, wishful thinking is not a measure of reality.

In recent days, it has become clear that the pro-Life community is more resolute than ever to end the tyranny of legalized abortion.

For example, just yesterday the House Appropriations Committee voted on a key funding bill for the State Department and foreign aid programs. In it, Republicans fought to defend pro-Life values by denying funds for the UN’s Population Control programs – so long as they continue to aid China in forcing women there to submit to abortions. In addition, Republicans included language which would codify the “Mexico City Policy” – long a battle ground with Planned Parenthood and their Democrat advocates. Started under President Reagan, the policy prohibits U.S. tax dollars from going to international organizations who perform abortions in foreign countries. (In other words, Planned Parenthood International).

Since Obama destroyed the Mexico City Policy upon taking office back in 2009, the House measure obviously sets up a confrontation with Senate Democrats and Obama later this year.

We also saw a meeting of the Platform Committee yesterday preparing for the Republican National Convention. Reports indicate that they are recommending to the convention the strongest pro-Life platform in history. The Platform will call for an end to taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as a ban on the use of aborted baby parts for medical research. Another section condemns the recent Supreme Court edict (Whole Woman’s Health) which prioritizes Planned Parenthood profits over the health and safety of women and girls.

The Republican platform stands in complete contrast to the upcoming Democrat statement on abortion, which apparently is becoming ever more radical. News reports indicate that Hillary will demand that taxpayers pay for all abortions if a woman or girl can’t pay the gangland slayers at Planned Parenthood.

Thus sets up an historic election. No genuine pro-Lifer can afford to be caught on the sidelines this fall.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Brexit – A Portent for the EU and Possibly for America

July 9th, 2016 by Halli


by Richard Larsen

Bigger is rarely better. Especially when it comes to governance. The “bigger” government is, the more detached from the governed it becomes; the more onerous its regulations and taxes become, and it becomes more susceptible to the ideologically motivated cause célèbre of the ruling elite. We have seen that verity over the past several years in America, and apparently the United Kingdom (UK) has come to the same conclusion.

Last week UK citizens voted by a narrow majority to withdraw from the European Union (EU), the amalgam of 28 nation states who joined the collective 23 years ago. The EU was to provide member nations more clout and influence by being part of the politico-economic entity that comprised the 2nd largest economy in the world, based on gross-domestic product (GDP).

The result of the vote created a veritable tempest in a teapot for financial markets, as most global stock exchanges dropped by 8-12% over the next two trading sessions. The stock selloff resulted in a predictable flight to safety, as traders moved to treasuries and the metals, spiking bond values and dropping yields. U.S. markets have recovered most of that volatility-induced loss, while most European markets have only somewhat recovered.

The tempest in a teapot metaphor is apropos since it would appear the vote to exit (British Exit, hence, “Brexit,”) was significantly influenced by a planned regulation of the top selling teapots and toasters in the UK. Tea and toast are staples to Britons, as they consume six times the tea their mainland counterparts drink. In April European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker accidentally revealed that there would be new restrictions on the devices based on new “ecodesign” models, over concerns with anthropogenic global warming. The new regulations would have banned eight of the best selling teapots and nine of the best selling toasters in the UK. In short, don’t mess with the Brit’s tea and toast!

They were also planning on banning six of the top 10 selling vacuum cleaners in the UK, including immensely popular British manufactured Dyson models. The move was seen as more “nanny state” meddling in the minutia of daily life. And their proposals were seen by Britons, apparently, to be as inane and idiotic as when the U.S. congress outlawed incandescent light bulbs as one of the first “accomplishments” of Nancy Pelosi’s 110th Congress in 2007. Ideologically driven regulatory meddling – the “nanny state” personified!

Brexit is perhaps the first of a series of antiestablishment votes, protesting the perceived disparaging effects of globalization. British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced he will resign in October. After a new PM is selected at the Conservative Party conference, the new PM will trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which will initiate the formalities of divorcing the UK from the EU, which are predicted to take about two years to implement.

MFS, the Boston-based mutual fund company, explained in a research piece this week, “To sum up, it looks as though the UK’s decision to leave the EU could be the beginning of a large, protracted process in which dissatisfaction with the effects of three decades of globalization is being expressed in ever more impactful ways.”

Theodore Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American Relations at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, expresses little concern from the Brexit vote. He argues that the benefits to both the U.S. and the U.K. are much greater than staying with the EU.

“The upside, economically, is that the UK would have the ability to sign genuine free trade agreements with whichever nation or nations that it could negotiate satisfactory agreements. The U.K. has a much wider financial role than just trading with the United States, as important as that is, and the city of London could continue its worldwide financial role, unrestrained by Euro related concerns. So that’s the economic side.”

Marian L. Tupy, senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute, thinks the effect on the U.S. will be negligible. “I don’t think that British involvement in Europe will have any consequences for America’s economic growth, not at all.”

Professor Tim Congdon of the University of Buckingham, has highlighted the high costs of regulation from the EU. He maintains that EU membership costs the U.K. over 10 percent of GDP, and that long-term they’ll be much better off.

The Brexit vote could be the beginning of the unravelling of the EU. Other countries considering their own “Brexit” are Czechoslovakia (“Czechout”), Finland, (“Finnish”), Italy (“Italeave”), and Netherlands (“Nexit”). As the anti-globalization sentiment grows, there could be a domino effect, which could see the unraveling of the EU and their currency, the Euro. Since the UK retained their Pound Sterling, at least they won’t have to worry about a currency reversion.

Nigel Farage, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), gave some of the credit for the successful Brexit campaign to President Obama. “Threatening people too much insults their intelligence. A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?’ It backfired. We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote.”

Presidential candidate Donald Trump was not surprised. “The world doesn’t listen to him.” Trump said he wholeheartedly backed Britain’s decision to leave the EU and once again forge its own path. “You just have to embrace it,” he said. “It’s the will of the people. What happened should have happened, and they’ll be stronger for it.”

Farage explained further, “People power can beat the establishment if they try hard enough.” It worked for the UK, and may carry over to other EU members with their upcoming votes. The U.S. could join that same anti-globalism and anti-establishment wave with a Trump victory in November. Time will tell.

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

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

Richard Larsen: No-Fly List Gun Control – Denying Citizens Rights Without Due Process

July 9th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The latest efforts to enact gun-control by Democrats in congress are either strictly symbolic, since they would not have stopped the San Bernadino or the Orlando Islamic extremists, or a Trojan horse to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Their proposal is to deny 2nd Amendment rights to anyone on the Transportation Safety Administration’s (TSA) “no-fly list.”

The murderers in San Bernadino and Orlando were not on the no-fly list, so even if such a law were in place, those acts of domestic terrorism would not have been prevented. So from that standpoint, such legislation would be mostly symbolic, and solve little to nothing.

It is much more likely, however, that the legislation is a Trojan horse to literally abolish 2nd Amendment rights of all, or more likely, select citizens. The no-fly list is created by bureaucrats of the Executive Branch, and is so secretive that people don’t even know their names are on it until they attempt to board a flight. We have no idea exactly how many people are on the no-fly list, but an FBI factsheet uncovered by PolitiFact in 2013 indicated there were 47,000 names on the list at that time.

Not only do citizens not know if they’ve been added to the list, they have no way of preventing themselves from being added, since the government maintains it in secrecy, and has provided no clear criteria or rationale for names being added to it. As Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU Nation Security Project has said, “The government puts people on the no-fly list using vague and overbroad standards, and it is wrongly blacklisting innocents without giving them a fair process to correct government error.”

The ACLU has filed suit against the government over their seemingly arbitrary and spurious addition of names. As Shamsi explains, “Our no-fly list lawsuit seeks to establish a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the list, which is error-prone and has had a devastating impact on their lives.”

And since the list is maintained by the Executive branch, and in secrecy, the potential for abuse is massive. Just look at how the IRS, which is also administered by the Executive branch, has politically targeted purported enemies of the Obama administration, and conservative political activist groups. Such abuse has tyranny and fascism written all over it!

Especially in light of what the Obama administration did just after it came to power in 2009. In an Agency Assessment from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the “enemies of the state” were clearly identified, and it was entirely based on ideology.

According to the, communiqué the issues qualifying citizens for “enemies of the state” status include opposition to gun control, government infringement on civil liberties, abortion, hate crime legislation, anti-illegal immigration, and opposition to same-sex marriage. In a footnote, the document states, “[Rightwing extremism] may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” In other words, everyone who is not a left-wing radical was identified officially an enemy to the Obama Administration and accused of being a potential domestic terrorist! By their own admission, however, they had no evidence of potential threats, so the assessment was nothing but a political hatchet-job against those who don’t agree with them.

After passage of the Democrat’s bill denying 2nd Amendment rights to those on the no-fly list, all that would need to be done by an unscrupulous and tyrannical president, is put all citizens with political leanings identified by the 2009 Agency Assessment on the no-fly list. From the Democrat’s perspective, problem solved. But for the nation, nothing solved, since leftists perpetrate most mass killings.

Once on the no-fly list, it’s nearly impossible to get off of it. The ACLU has declared, “The government denies watchlisted individuals any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names.” Eleven term congressman John Lewis (D-GA), has been trying to get his name off of the list for five years.

There is no process by which a citizen can be prevented from being added to the no-fly list, or the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. Which means, if a citizen were added to one of them, they would be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process, which is guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments. This would be just one step away from the government denying 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, etc.) rights by placement on a government watch list, or “no speak” list, again denying due process, and violating rights assured by our most foundational document. This would be tyrannical and fascistic, and as antithetical to American values as one could get!

This argument was brilliantly illustrated in a House Government Oversight Committee hearing exchange between chairman Trey Gowdy and DHS Deputy Director Kelli Burriesci in December. That two minute video should be watched by every American, and can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wrxmaMLXLE.

And while we’re on this subject, why is it that the ire of the anti-gun left is invariably targeted against the National Rifle Association? Founded in 1871, the NRA is the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the country. Their objectives are protecting our 2nd Amendment rights and teaching responsible and proper gun use. Blaming them for abuse of those rights is like blaming the ACLU for 1st Amendment abuses, like hate speech! Can’t get much more illogical and inane than that!

Gun control is a key issue for the left, since it can be so easily fomented emotionally. But it does nothing to address the underlying social and cultural issues which are the cause of violence and domestic terrorism. And using vague government controlled lists as the basis to deny fundamental rights is a violation of our constitutional rights, which define what it means to be an American citizen.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Solution to Domestic Terrorism is NOT More Gun Control

June 29th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

In the face of the horrible terrorist attack in Orlando this week, Senate Democrats filibustered, holding the floor of the Senate hostage in order to enact more gun control legislation. What they seem incapable of acknowledging, is that it’s not further diminution of our 2nd Amendment that needs correction, but rather a complete overhaul of the Obama Administration’s policies that enable and facilitate such heinous attacks on our own soil.

US President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, DC, December 7, 2010. Obama vowed Tuesday to fight to overturn tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in 2012, just a day after reaching a compromise with Republicans to extend the cuts for two years.

In response to the attack, President Obama showed anger and emotion, something rarely seen from him. But his rage was not directed to the homegrown terrorist who perpetrated the massacre in Orlando, rather it was aimed at his political critics, and Donald Trump, for criticizing Obama’s apparent inability to correctly identify and name the jihadist zealotry that has brought Islamic extremism to the homeland.

Obama angrily lashed out, claiming that calling such terrorism “radical Islam” is not a strategy. He is correct, it is not a “strategy.” But it is the basis for creating a strategy. Sun Tzu, the 6th century Chinese general and military strategist, perspicaciously declared, “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles… if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Obviously, from a strategic standpoint, it’s critical to know not only yourself and your strengths and weaknesses, but also those of your enemy. And your strategy is incapacitated and fundamentally flawed if you refuse to even properly or accurately identify your enemy, especially their motivation.

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, correctly identified this fundamental flaw of Obama’s this week when he said to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, “Telling the truth about violent Islam is a prerequisite to a strategy – a strategy you [Obama] admitted you don’t have. It is the Commander-in-Chief’s duty to actually identify our enemies and to help the American people understand the challenge of violent Islam.”

ralph-peters1Lt. Col. Ralph Peters echoed that verity in an interview on Fox News this week. “Using the correct terminology, jihad, & radical Islam, they have legal, strategic, military, and no end of important meanings as applied to the strategy.”
He went on to provide examples of how the Obama administration has weakened our ability to address the threat, not just abroad, but even more significantly, here at home. “We’ve censored our law enforcement, the pentagon and the military. They can’t teach certain things. They can’t teach the history of jihad honestly. They can’t use these terms. The FBI is restricted from using certain terms. How does that help us?”

He concluded, “We’ve got to quit saying that this isn’t Islam. It’s part of it. Jews and Christians have no authority to say what is and isn’t Islam. Muslims have that authority, and hundreds of millions of Muslims have declared that this is it. We have to call it what it is, and what they’re telling us it is.”

Then, addressing the political component of this failure to identify the enemy, he pointed out, “The administration has allowed Muslim activists here to block certain lecturers from speaking at military schools or the FBI Academy. We have allowed radical Muslim activists here in the United States to control the curriculum at our law enforcement and military training schools. It is a phenomenal error. If we can’t teach or have an open and honest debate, hear from both sides, about the history of jihad, about radical Islam, about Wahhabism, what have we come to? This is Orwellian doublespeak: peace is war, war is peace. You’ve got to use language precisely. It has legal, military, cultural implications, and it matters to the strategy.”

751bfb15177cf32c640f6a7067003688In the middle of all of this extremist mayhem, and with the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 serving as a backdrop, the Obama administration quietly announced this week that it’s “fast-tracking” the number of Syrian refugees coming into America. According to Avril Haines, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor this week, “We’re speeding up the admissions process. So far, we’ve admitted about 3,500 Syrian refugees – more in the last five weeks than in the past seven months.”

National Intelligence Director James Clapper said just a few months ago, “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that is a huge concern of ours.” And the FBI Director James Comey said just a few months ago in a House hearing, that the government has no way to adequately screen these refugees for jihadist leanings. “We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said. “And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.” In other words, there’s no way to adequately vet them.

Chaffetz-428-ThumbnailTo make matters worse, if they could possibly be worse, the Obama administration’s Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE) has released over 86,000 illegal immigrant criminals, who committed over 231,000 crimes, just since 2010. This data was made public at a House hearing last month by Rep. Jason Chaffetz. These were aliens who illegally entered the United States, were convicted of crimes here, and then simply released upon the unsuspecting public. We have no breakdown on the nations of origin of those criminals, but considering how porous our southern border is, the odds are great that many could have extremist leanings.

There is ample evidence that Obama’s convoluted and warped ideology carries over to domestic law enforcement. Retired Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Philip Haney had been running a special investigation into a worldwide Islamist movement originating from Pakistan known as Tablighi Jamaat. In the course of his investigation, Haney uncovered numerous connections between several mosques and individuals in the U.S. with known terrorists and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaida and Hamas, among others.

In an open letter to Congress just last year he explained how his program was cancelled. “Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by [Hillary Clinton’s] State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. [Which included over 300 suspects.] The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s [the San Bernardino jihadist] attendance at al Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result.”

He then offered this poignant observation. “The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated.” He then asked this compelling question, “When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity?”

A meme circulating in social media indicates that during Ronald Reagan’s terms, there were 11 mass shootings. Under George H.W. Bush, 12. Under Bill Clinton, 23, and under George W. Bush, 16. But under the accommodating and acquiescent policies of Barack Obama’s administration, there have been 162, most of which they don’t recognize because of their diluted definition of a “mass shooting.”

More gun control is not the answer to these domestic terrorist attacks. The solution is to enforce existing laws against those who conspire to perpetrate terrorist attacks on Americans. Unleash law enforcement to employ profiling and all other effective tools go to the root of the jihadist organizations that have set up shop here at home. Take guns away, and they’ll simply change their weapon of choice, to IEDs or suicide vests. Solve the problem by going to the root, not by thrashing ineffectually at the branches.

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

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

David Ripley: Common Core’s Social Agenda

June 6th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Socialization: A process by which the Left creates new standards of moral order.

Opponents of the common core agenda, which includes a nationalization of public education, have long feared that a major component of the elite’s agenda to “reform” education had nothing to do with developing basic intellectual skills. A good part of that concern is the result of the tremendous secrecy which surrounds the common core testing – to the point where parents and even teachers are prohibited from seeing questions. Such an approach to testing defies the logic of testing.

Yet here we are, in a land where private contractors working for bureaucrats in Washington are redefining “education” and “learning” without public oversight.

The worst fears were confirmed this last week when a student taking a biology exam sent a photo of the question home to his parents over his smartphone. The question was a blatant attempt to normalize abortion:

“John and his sister Brittany are high school students in a small town. Their mother Jill is 40 years old and has learned that she is pregnant with a child. Genetic testing has indicated that the child has Down’s Syndrome. Their family doctor has recommended that Jill have an abortion. John and Brittany’s mother and father have called the family together to discuss their options. Which of the following statements describes how the family should make this decision?”

The high school biology students were presented with four multiple choice answers – none of which included the option of choosing to give this preborn child life.

The student’s parents were outraged, of course, and contacted school officials. And they, of course, pled ignorance as to the content of the test questions.

It is important to note that this exam was not in Stockton or Newark. It took place in neighboring Utah – a well known bastion of conservative religious values.

Here is the original story from the Salt Lake Tribune:

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 »

David Ripley: Congressional Panel Continues to Press on Organ Harvesting Scandal

June 6th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The House Select Investigative Committee released more findings of its research into the gruesome partnership between Planned Parenthood and companies trafficking in aborted baby parts.

Led by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the Congressional committee announced this week that it had uncovered serious violations of patient privacy and collusion to deceive women undergoing abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics. Given the sordid nature of the business, it is impossible for women and girls to avoid being treated like a commodity as organ harvesting companies hunt to buy valuable organs and tissue for resale.

The committee found that companies like Stem Express gain illegal access to patient files as they look for the best candidates to fill orders from their partners in universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical history, blood type, economic status and genetic information can all add special value to the tissue harvested from aborted babies. Such violation of privacy is illegal under HIPPA, and a gross abuse of those vulnerable women ensnared by Planned Parenthood.

But it gets worse as Stem Express goes in for the sale on the woman sitting in the lobby. The committee also found evidence of manipulation and even coercion of those mothers by the trolls looking for quick cash from the resale of their dead babies. And, as we have long suspected, the consent process used by these companies and Planned Parenthood is wholly inadequate and misleading.

We commend the work of Blackburn and her colleagues. It is imperative that they resist the politics of congressional Democrats – who have been turning up the heat to end the investigation into this national scandal. They must continue to move through this sewer and bring their findings before the full Congress for appropriate action: We must make harvesting and trafficking in aborted baby parts illegal in America.

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, Politics in General | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

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